Obama a False Hope

8/14/2019 Obama a False Hope

1/25

1

Obama a False HopeBy: Nausherwan Hafeez

Wheneveryou find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.

-Mark Twain

Barack Obama has been extensively vetted during the past twenty months of hiscampaign. During this time, Obama has effectively managed to mobilize a diverse group ofsupporters ranging from young voters, to African-Americans and liberal professionals. He hassteadily gained support through a savvy campaign and charismatic charm. He comes from adiverse ethnic background and purportedly offers a change we can believe in. With ElectionDay just around the corner a close analysis of his policies and track record will indicate whatkind of President Obama would actually be. In particular, what would an Obama Presidencymean on both progressive issues and issues that affect American Muslims? A close look at hisrecord paints a disturbing picture of a future Obama Presidency.

Before turning to Obama, it is important to understand that the American Muslim

community is no monolithic group. The estimated seven-million American Muslims are adiverse community that consists of both an indigenous African-American and immigrantpopulation. American Muslims are an under-represented constituency in political affairs eventhough the Muslim vote could play a critical role in determining who becomes President. Thereare large clusters of Muslims in key swing states such as Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, andVirginia. In the 2000 election, Muslims played a critical role in getting George W. Bush elected.Delinda C. Hanley, a News Editor at The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,wrotethat:

After surveying the community and making overtures to both Bush and his opponent,Vice President Al Gore, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council PoliticalAction Committee (AMPCC-PAC), comprising the four major American-Muslimorganizationsthe American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslim Council(AMC), CAIR, and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), recommended that itsmembers vote for Bush.

According to CAIR figures, that recommendation resulted in 78 percent of Muslimsvoting for George W. Bush. In Florida, the most crucial state in the last elections, exitpolls showed that 91 percent of the 60,000 Muslim Americans who voted supportedBush.

Muslims were attracted to Bush for his stance on civil liberties, foreign policy, and social values.Muslims turned their support away from Bush after he reneged on his campaign promises andturned out to be a bellicose warmonger. Hanley went on to note that a June CAIR poll ofMuslims who had voted for Bush in 2000 found that 50 percent planned to vote for Kerry, 26 forNader, only 3 percent for Bush, with the rest not yet sure. In 2004, the Muslim ElectorateCouncil of America conducted a studythat foundthat there are more than 2 million Muslimseligible to vote in the United States and about 57 percent of them were registered to vote. Thiselection cycle the Muslim vote appears headed towards Obama with thetacitthough notexplicitendorsement by both CAIR and MPAC.
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/Sept_2004/0409025.htmlhttp://www.washington-report.org/archives/Sept_2004/0409025.htmlhttp://www.washington-report.org/archives/Sept_2004/0409025.htmlhttp://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8857http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8857http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8857http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=18389http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=18389http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=18389http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8857http://www.washington-report.org/archives/Sept_2004/0409025.html


2/25

2

Progressives care about a wide range of issues, from universal health-care to an end ofour imperialistic wars abroad. Many progressives voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 but have beenso cowed by the Bush Presidency that they are willing to sell their ideals short for the lesser oftwo evils. This strategy will ensure that the Democratic Party will continue to take theprogressives vote for granted and we will not see real change. However, progressives still appear

to be flocking to Obama.In spite of this, progressives and American Muslims need to temper their enthusiasm forObama. A close look at his record on civil liberties, foreign policy, economic policy, andpersonal actions indicate that support for Obama is misplaced.

Civil LibertiesOver the past eight years, civil liberties have rapidly declined and this has been a cause

for consternation amongst progressives. Issues such as the National Security Agencys (NSA)illegal warrantless wiretapping program, the Patriot Act, and Faith-Based initiatives havecurtailed basic rights. Obamas stance on these issues has been both highly pernicious andseriously misplaced. Furthermore, he slighted the Muslim community during his March 18, 2008

Speech on Race.

NSA Wiretapping

The NSA wiretapping is arguably the most blatant government intrusion on Americancitizens in a generation. This secretive program wasexposedin December 2005 by theNew YorkTimes and allowed the Bush Administration through to illegally monitorwithout warrantsphone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communications involving anyparty believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. In May of 2006, the USA Todayexposedhowthe NSA had been secretly collecting the phone records of millions Americans with the help ofAT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. This program went above and beyond the legal method tomonitor the electronic communication of Americans which was to obtain a warrant from thesecret court authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Russel Tice, anNSA whistle-blower,explained:

The FISA courtits not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kindaliken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, themonkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It cant read the block, butit just stamps affirmed on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the nextpaper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think,four were turned down, you cant look at the FISA court as anything different.

So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around theFISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a

lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleanerapproach may have been used, in which case you dont get names, and thats ultimatelywhy you wouldnt go to the FISA court. And I think thats something Congress needs toaddress. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimatelydetermine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuumcleaner-type scenario.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmhttp://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/3/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_warnshttp://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/3/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_warnshttp://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/3/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_warnshttp://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/3/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_warnshttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html


3/25

3

With the government and telecommunications companies involved in an explicitly illegalwiretapping program, this should have been something that was easily opposed. Since listeningin on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants is a felony underU.S.lawpunishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offensethis programshould have been opposed and the criminals involved prosecuted. James Bamford, author of

several books on the NSA,explainedhow the program worked:

[The NSA] picks up communications from satellites, it taps undersea and undergroundfiber-optic cables, it gets information any way it can, and then some of the information isencrypted, and its responsible for breaking those codes and then sending the informationthat it gets from these intercepts to other agencies.

The massive amount of information that the government has obtained illegally is a seriousintrusion on all Americans civil liberties. However, Barack Obama opposed prosecution for thecriminals involved in this program and, in fact, endorsed the White Houses illegal actions.

So how did Obama do this? After the NSA illegal wiretapping program was exposed, the

Bush Administration called for an overhaul of the FISA Act. They temporarily received the fixthat they wanted in the Protect America Act, but a permanent fix was more elusive. The twomajor issues that held up a revised FISA bill were the issue of prosecution for those involved inthis program and how the new act should be structured. A spokesman for Barack Obama initiallystatedon October 24, 2007 that:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactiveimmunity for telecommunications companies.

This was the right stance to take. Yet when the final FISA bill came to a vote in the Senatewhich included retroactive immunity for telecommunications companiesnot only did ObamaNOT filibuster the bill, he voted in favor of cloturea technique that closes discussion on a billand brings it up for voteand voted in FAVOR of the revised FISA bill. This was a two-partflip-flop by Obama; he sold out both civil rights activists and did the exact opposite of filibusterthis flawed act. TheNew York Timeseditorializedthat:

[This bill would make it] much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courtspowers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans privatecommunications without a warrant.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he wasabove the law

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be punished for cooperatingwith the government. Thats Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose ofwithholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing thedetails of Mr. Bushs outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know justwhat those companies did.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.htmlhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.htmlhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/14/james_bamford_the_shadow_factory_thehttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/14/james_bamford_the_shadow_factory_thehttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/14/james_bamford_the_shadow_factory_thehttp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.phphttp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.phphttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.htmlhttp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.phphttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/14/james_bamford_the_shadow_factory_thehttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.htmlhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.htmlhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html


4/25

4

So Obama voted for a severely flawed FISA bill that reduces our civil liberties. The majorproblems with this bill are that the government can tap any communications Americans havewith people overseas and that it granted telecommunication companies retroactive immunity.The criminal activities of the telecommunications companies and the government officials willnot be prosecuted. Our constitution will be weaker because of this and Obama is both an enabler

and complicit in this government cover-up.

Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is the infamous law that was passed shortly after the September 11, 2001terrorist attacks which radically expanded the governments domestic law enforcementcapabilities. The American Civil Liberties Unionnotedthat the act: Allows FBI Agents toinvestigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say itis for intelligence purposes. Some of the effects of the Patriot Act have been:

8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been interrogated because of theirreligion or ethnic background, not because of actual wrongdoing.

Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin, have been held insecretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without any chargesfiled against them. The government has refused to publish their names andwhereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.

New Attorney General Guidelines allow FBI spying on religious and politicalorganizations and individuals without having evidence of wrongdoing.

The Patriot Act was an ill-conceived piece of legislation that was rammed through Congress inthe immediate aftermath of a national tragedy. Joe Biden votedforboth the initial act and

subsequent reauthorizations of it. Obama was not in the Senate when the initial bill passed butwas in the Senate for the reauthorization of the act. Obama votedforthe reauthorization of thePatriot Act. There have been some courageous individuals who have stood up against this attackon our civil liberties, such as Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold who was only senator to voteagainstthe initial bill. The American Muslim communityspositionagainst this severely flawedbill directly contradicts both Obama and Bidens position. Their position is unacceptable andmust be revised.

Faith-Based Initiatives

President Bush created this controversial program with the intent to give federal moneyvia theWhite House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiativesto religious organizations

for charitable social-service projects. While this sounds good in theory, in practicality much ofthe funds have gone to just a handful of Christian religious organizations that only serve theinterests of their parishioners and not the broader community. By 2005, the program had anannual budget of $2.15 billion dollars and former President Jimmy Carternotedthat:

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions,even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers
http://www.aclu.org/takeaction/general/18880pub20030211.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/takeaction/general/18880pub20030211.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/takeaction/general/18880pub20030211.htmlhttp://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=53279http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=53279http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=53279http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_timelinepatriot2.htmlhttp://feingold.senate.gov/issues_timelinepatriot2.htmlhttp://www.washington-report.org/archives/November_2003/0311029.htmlhttp://www.washington-report.org/archives/November_2003/0311029.htmlhttp://www.washington-report.org/archives/November_2003/0311029.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/19/1305http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/19/1305http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/19/1305http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/19/1305http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/http://www.washington-report.org/archives/November_2003/0311029.htmlhttp://feingold.senate.gov/issues_timelinepatriot2.htmlhttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=53279http://www.aclu.org/takeaction/general/18880pub20030211.html


5/25

5

in a particular religion. Those things in my opinion are quite disturbing," Carter said. "Asa traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honoredthat premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, exceptthis one."

The separation of church and state is sacrosanct in America and the faith-based initiatives are adangerous overstep of this boundary. However, Obama has come out in favor of expanding faith-based initiatives. Anarticlein the New York Times noted:

[Obama] thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bushadministration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr.Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groupsreceiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using themoney to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potentialrecipients or employees.

In spite of Obamas stated desire to prevent funds from going towards particular religious groupsthis program itself is highly questionable. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress,commented on faith-based initiatives andsaid:

This [program] is basically the Department of Religious Outreach ... it's essentially apublic-relations outreach arm for the Bush administration to reach out to the far right ofthe evangelical Christian movement. That's really all it is.

The expansion of the faith-based initiative program that Obama has proposed is unacceptable.Our constitution explicitly separates church-and-state and this program should be opposed.

Speech on Race

Obama, in the midst of a controversy over remarks made by his former Pastor ReverendJeremiah Wright, delivered aSpeech on Racethat receivedwidespreadpraise and theNew YorkTimeseditorializedthat, What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over aparticular controversyhe raised the discussion to a higher plane. I disagree. While Obamadid make some encouraging remarks, he clearly slighted Muslims and displayed a callowunderstanding ofAmericas policy in the Middle East. Obama may have raised the discussion ofrace to a different level but he most certainly lowered the conversation on religion.

When Obama discussed Americans relationships with their religious advisers, heexplicitly mentioned pastors, priests and rabbis while leaving out any reference to imams. Byframing his discussion in this way, he paints a picture of American that is exclusively Protestant,Roman Catholic, or Jewish. Perhaps leaving out Muslims was unintentional; however,considering Obamas other remarks and statements it does fit into a pattern. For example, Obamasaid that:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm werent simply controversial.They werent simply a religious leaders effort to speak out against perceived injustice.Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this countrya view that seeswhite racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.htmlhttp://www.startribune.com/462/story/1291147.htmlhttp://www.startribune.com/462/story/1291147.htmlhttp://www.startribune.com/462/story/1291147.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-reactio_n_92121.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-reactio_n_92121.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-reactio_n_92121.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-reactio_n_92121.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htmlhttp://www.startribune.com/462/story/1291147.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html


6/25

6

know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rootedprimarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the

perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. [Emphasis added]

There are two primary problems with this statement. First, he argues that the conflict in the

Middle East is caused by radical Islam not Israel; this statement shows a perverseunderstanding of the conflict of the Middle East. His statement is basically blaming the victimsnot the perpetrator. Last I checked it was Israel who forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands ofPalestinians in contravention of international law and has refused the Palestinians unalienableright of return. Obama grossly misunderstands the conflicts in the Middle East and his specificpolicies will be discussed in length later on in this piece.

The second flaw is that he used the term radical Islam. There is no such thing asradical Islam. This term impugns the religion of Islam itself rather than the small group ofradical Muslims. To use this term is to give credence to the idea that there is something radicalabout Islam when that is simply not true. There are some individuals who take a skewedinterpretation of the religion but Obama is denigrating Islam by using this phrase. Just as there is

no such thing as radical Christianity or radical Judaism there is no such thing as radicalIslam. Obama must stop using this phrase which is an insult to the religion of Islam.Obamas speech was consistent in terms of how he and his campaign have dealt with

Muslims. Throughout his twenty months of campaigning, he has spoken at various churches andsynagogues but not a single mosque. When aphotoemerged of Obama in traditional Somali garbhe was quick to denounce Senator Clinton for allegedly distributing the picture. His campaignsaidthat [Clintons] campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongeringweve seen from either party in this election. Furthermore his campaignsaid, It is unfortunate... that her campaign would be involved in putting out a photograph that is in its very naturedesigned to be divisive. The subtext of these statements is clear: Barack Obama is in no wayshape or form a Muslim and that calling him such, or insinuating it, is equivalent to a slur. Heeven explicitly stated on his website that calling him a Muslim was aslur. His vehement denialsof being a Muslim gave off the impression that somehow it is bad to be a Muslim. While its finethat Obama has denied rumors that he is a Muslim, he should respond by asking, Whats wrongwith being a Muslim? Being called a Muslim has become a slur in American politics thatObama is perpetuating by his vehement denials and inability to say that there is nothing wrongwith being a Muslim. His actions make it appear that being a Muslim is something that isabnormal and unacceptable. That is a very bitter pill to offer the seven million Muslims inAmerica today, who constitute as large a community as Jews do in America. Obama has clearlysnubbed American Muslims.

Foreign Policy

With the numerous foreign policy blunders of the Bush Administration one should hopethat an Obama would take a different route in international relations. Unfortunately that is not thecase. Obama will have to deal with a wide variety of issues such as the military budget, hisadvisers, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, andSudan. In all of these areas, Obamas policy positions are severely flawed.

Military budget
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25webcamp.phphttp://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25webcamp.phphttp://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25webcamp.phphttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26clinton.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26clinton.htmlhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_campaign_wont_investigate_who_sent_0225.htmlhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_campaign_wont_investigate_who_sent_0225.htmlhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_campaign_wont_investigate_who_sent_0225.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.htmlhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_campaign_wont_investigate_who_sent_0225.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26clinton.htmlhttp://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25webcamp.php


7/25

7

Obama is infavorof increasing funding for the military and he wants to add 65,000troops to the Army and 27,000 to Marines. This is in spite of the fact that Congress hasallocated$612 billion for the year 2009, although this cost doesnt take into account further supplementalfunding bills that will be needed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as militarycosts that are hidden in other departments. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed

$1 trillionfor the first time in history and 2009 defense spending will be larger. America alreadyspends moreon its military than the rest of the world combined. America cannot afford tocontinue in this profligate spending. Obamas position is dead wrong and the military budgetmust be reduced.

Advisers

A key indication of how Obamas foreign policy would look like is by considering hisadvisers. He initially had the liberal interventionist Samantha Powers as an adviser but after shemade some unflattering comments about Hillary Clinton she was dropped from his campaign.The military General James Jones has advised Obamas campaign and so too has RepublicanSenator Dick Lugar. The most important adviser, however, is his Vice Presidential running mate

Joe Biden.Joe Biden is a Beltway politician who does have foreign policy experience, just not theright kind. His cheerleading of the war in Iraq, skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinianconflict, and threats of crisis are deeply disturbing.

One cannot over-estimate how critical of a role Biden played in making the Iraq warpossible. As Professor Stephen Zunes hasnoted:

In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama waswrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UNdisarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constitutedboth a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security and was anextreme danger to the world. Despite the absence of any weapons of massdestruction or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarksduring an interview last year,replied, Thats right, and I was correct about that.

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administrations lies and manipulation,Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regardingSaddam Husseins supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction years beforePresident George W. Bush even came to office

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country.Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the eliminationof Iraqs WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make anexcuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. DuringSenate hearings on Iraq in September of that year,Biden told Ritter, As long asSaddams at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is evergoing to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety ofSaddams program relative to weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.htmlhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraudhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraudhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraudhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htmhttp://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htmhttp://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htmhttp://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htmhttp://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htmhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraudhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html


8/25

8

In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraqsmilitary capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concernedabout Iraqs alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq hadeliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically inthe weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical

weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployablebiological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some yearsearlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and thathe may have a strain of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic EnergyAgency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraqhad any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was seeking nuclearweapons.

Said Biden, One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, orSaddam must be dislodged from power. He did not believe proof of the existence of anyactual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that If we wait for the

danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late. He further defended PresidentBush by falsely claiming that He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismissa new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he haschosen a course of moderation and deliberation.

Biden was clearly wrong on Iraq. His understanding of the Iraqs capabilities was severelyflawed and he helped enable the war to occur. This enabler has also ratcheted up rhetoric againstIran and it would not be at all surprising if he stretched evidence against them as well.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is no doubt where Bidens sympathy lies. He hasopenly declaredthat, "If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don't have to bea Jew to be a Zionist." During theVice-Presidential Debate, Biden said, no one in the United

States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. He went on to say:

I argued against the elections being held for the Palestinian parliament. Who insisted onit? George W. Bush. I predicted that Hamas would win, and they won. Now we've takena terrorist organization and legitimized it in the eyes of the world -- and why? Becausethey won an election. It's been a disastrous policy for Israel.

The two major problems with this statement are that he is opposed to the democratic process inPalestine and that Hamas is an illegitimate terrorist organization. Being opposed to elections justbecause they dont turn out the way you want them is highly undemocratic and is a slap downagainst the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East and the world. Calling Hamas aterrorist organization and refusing to negotiate with them is not a strategy for peace. HamasPrime Minister Ishmael Haniyehwrote:

We present this clear message: If Israel will not allow Palestinians to live in peace,dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will not be able to enjoy those samerights. Meanwhile, our right to defend ourselves from occupying soldiers and aggressionis a matter of law, as settled in the Fourth Geneva Convention. If Israel is prepared tonegotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearinghttp://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearinghttp://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/04-5http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/04-5http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/04-5http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/04-5http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearing


9/25

9

ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna(comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has anopportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic peopleof the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality.

Haniyeh offers both the carrot and the stick. Hamas has to be dealt with therefore it is better toengage with them in negotiations rather than through continued isolation.Commenting on a possible Israeli strike on Iran, Biden said, You can't tell Israel not to

launch a pre-emptive strike. You can't tell Israel what's in their own interest. This is a dangerousstatement to make because if Israel were to attack Iran we wouldinevitablybe drawn into theconflict. The hawks need to be challenged, not given a free pass to do as they please.

Clearly Biden has thrown overwhelming support behind all of Israels action. This isunacceptable since American needs to play a mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,not exclusively back the Israeli side. Furthermore, Israel must be prevented from launching apreemptive strike against Iran and instead we should focus on resolving the Iranian nuclear issue.

Finally, Biden made an extremely troubling comment at a fundraiser in Seattle. Hesaid:

Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like theydid John Kennedy. The world is looking. Were about to elect a brilliant 47-year-oldsenator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here . . .were gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

Either Biden knows something that the rest of us dont, or he believes that a major crisis willbegin or be generated soon after Obama takes office. Would this be an expansion of the globalWar on Terror into Pakistan, an attack on Iran, or perhaps something else? With Bidens knownhawkish tendencies it is quite troubling to think about what would happen if there was anotherinternational crisis, whether real or manufactured. Biden has shown poor foreign policyjudgment and this reflects ill on an Obama Administration.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Obamas deep misunderstanding of this conflict has already been briefly touched on. Butit was Obamasspeechat AIPAC that truly displayed how wrong he is on the conflict. Beforeanalyzing his speech, it is important to consider Israels record.

Israel has instituted a concerted effort of colonization and expulsion in the West Bank.The most visceral example of this is the apartheid wall that has been built throughout the WestBank in violation of the International Court of Justices ruling that its construction is illegal.Former President Jimmy Carter noted in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheidthat, [The Wall] isprojected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israels internationally recognized borderand already cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides families from their gardens andfarmland, and includes 375,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side of the wall, 175,000 of whomare outside Jerusalem. This land grab has allowed forthe de facto creation of bantustans forPalestinian people.

Israel has used the tactic of extrajudicial killings to eliminate those it deems a threat. Oneof the most heinous of these killings occurred in March of 2004 when an American-suppliedIsraeli Helicopter gunship bombed and killed the quadriplegic Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/strike-and-well-strike-you-back--warns-tehran-860507.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/strike-and-well-strike-you-back--warns-tehran-860507.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/strike-and-well-strike-you-back--warns-tehran-860507.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4981906.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4981906.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4981906.ecehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4981906.ecehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/strike-and-well-strike-you-back--warns-tehran-860507.html


10/25

10

collateral damage from this bombing was 9 innocent bystanders, includ ing 6 children. Theassassination of alleged criminals is a gross violation to the rule of law.

Israeli policies in Gaza exemplify the idea of collective punishment. Israel has blockadedmost imports and exports in Gaza by declaring it a hostile territory. Consequently, about 70%of Gazas workforce is now unemployed or without pay, according the United Nations, and

about 80% of its residents live in harsh poverty. About 1.2 million of them are dependent fortheir day-to-day survival on food handouts from the UN or other international agencies, withoutwhich the population would starve. This deliberate attempt to destroy Gazan livelihood is indirect violation of the Geneva Conventionwhich Israel is a signatory toobliges anoccupational force to ensure the well-being of the occupied peoples.

Israel has set up over 500 different checkpoints throughout the West Bank. Thesecheckpoints prevent Palestinians from moving freely within their own territory. To add insult toinjury, there are numerous Jew-only roads throughout the West Bank that the nativePalestinians are denied access to. This process of restricting Palestinian movement and access toroads throughout their territory is chillingly reminiscent of Nazi Germanys policy towards theirJewish population during the early part of the 1930s.

Israel continues to violate of numerous U.N. resolutions. Israel continues to violate theGeneva Conventions regarding settlement of occupied territory, forbidding refugees fromreturning to their homes, and using collective punishment. Israel continues to violate theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders ofeach state.(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to hiscountry.-- Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.-- Article 17

These systematic violations of international law leave the Palestinians with little recourse.Palestinians are forced to ask for aid from the international community and Israel often preventsthis aid from reaching them

Consider how Israel treats Nobel Peace Laureates. Israel shoots them, bars them fromentry, denounces them as anti-Semitic, or slowly suffocates them. On April 20, 2007,MaireadMaguire was shot in the legwith a rubber bullet by the Israeli army who opened fire at apeaceful demonstration in the West Bank village of Bilin. On November 8, 2006, the Israeliarmy shelled the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun whichkilled 19 Palestinians. The UnitedNations sent Desmond Tutu on a fact-finding mission to Gaza but he was barred from entry untilthis year. Whenhe visited Gaza on May 28, he described the Beit Hanoun attack as a "massacre"and he later delivered a full report on this event to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In2006, former President Jimmy Carter wrote the bookPalestine: Peace Not Apartheidin anattempt to shed some light on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and encourage debate on thetopic. For his efforts, Carter was labeled ananti-Semiteand roundly attacked by supporters of
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htmlhttp://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/israel2http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/israel2http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/israel2http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425082.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425082.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425082.stmhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.storyhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425082.stmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/israel2http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/23/irish_nobel_peace_laureate_mairead_maguirehttp://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


11/25

11

Israel. Yasser Arafat spent the last years of his life in anIsraeli-destroyed compound in Ramallahchoked off from the international community untilhis mysterious death in 2004.

America has historically had a very close relationship with Israel. The American-Israelialliance has benefited Israel tremendously. The US has given Israel more than $140 billion indirect economic and military assistance. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance

annually and is exempt from accounting for how this aid money is spent. Funds are oftensiphoned off to build Jewish colonies in the West Bank and provide funding for the apartheidwall.

Obama plans to continue this special relationship with Israel. In his AIPAC speech,Obama began by stating, Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bondbetween the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever. Thisstatement sounded reminiscent of Alabama Governor George Wallaces1963 inaugural addressin which he stated, Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever! Im surethat the Palestinians understand this parallel. But it got worse. Obama went on to say:

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel

can defend itself from any threatfrom Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation betweenthe United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, Iwill implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistanceto Israel over the next decadeinvestments to Israel's security that will not be tied toany other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward,we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export militaryequipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always standup for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

So Obama is in favor of increasing the military aid to a rogue state that has already receivedhundreds of billions of dollars in aid. He continued and said:

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey.We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's rightto exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table forterrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas onthe ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time againstholding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gazacontrolled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

Obama is in complete agreement with Biden on this issue. He is opposed to Palestiniandemocracy. Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar commented on the Palestinian election bywriting:

The U.S.-Israeli alliance has sought to negate the results of the January 2006 elections,when the Palestinian people handed our party a mandate to rule. Hundreds of independentmonitors, Carter among them, declared this the fairest election ever held in the ArabMiddle East. Yet efforts to subvert our democratic experience include the American coupd'etat that created the new sectarian paradigm with Fatah and the continuing warfareagainst and enforced isolation of Gazans.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/07/mideast.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/07/mideast.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/07/mideast.htmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4225332.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4225332.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4225332.stmhttp://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.htmlhttp://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.htmlhttp://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4225332.stmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/07/mideast.htm


12/25

12

In spite of this, Obama refuses to negotiate with Hamas until it meets his preconditions. This israther ironic because Israel continues to terrorize the Palestinians, doesnt recognize thePalestinians right to exist (i.e. Palestine should be an independent sovereign state), and doesntabide by past agreements. He continues this hypocrisy and states:

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestiniansneed a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper but anyagreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state,with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital ofIsrael, and it must remain undivided.

The fact that Obama later modified his statement on Jerusalem bysayingthat Jerusalem is afinal status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties doesntmitigate the impact of this statement. He knew how contentious an issue of Jerusalem was beforehe made his speech and by making that statement, he delivered a clear indication that he wouldsupport Israels illegal annexation ofJerusalem. Furthermore, he argued vehemently for

maintaining Israel as a Jewish state which is a rather odd idea to defend for an alleged liberaldemocracy. What about the Muslims in Israel? Are they not to be treated as equal citizens andexcluded for not being Jewish? There have been many states in the past that have decided toensure that their states were homogenous for a particular religion or race and sometimes this hasled to disastrous results. Perpetuating the notion of a Jewish state is not helpful.

Some say that perhaps Obama does have a deeper understanding of the conflict. Theseobservers point to Obamasstatementthat nobody has suffered more than the Palestinianpeople. After coming under pressure from the Israel lobby, he massaged his statement andsaid,Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinianleadership to recognize Israel [Emphasis added]. By turning the statement into acondemnation of Palestinian leadership proves that he doesnt understand the conflict.

Consider how Obama reacted to the situation in Gaza. He came out against a proposedUN Security Council statement that expressed concern over the Israeli blockade. HedescribedIsraels siege as forced by the Palestinian rocket attacks. Obama callously ignored the fact thatIsraels blockade was equivalent to collective punishment on all of Gaza. Collective punishmentagainst civilians is a breach of international law,but Obama doesnt appear to care about that.

Probably the most appropriatepart of Obamas speech at AIPAC wasnt anything that hesaid but what he wore. Earlier in his campaign, Obama had decided tostop wearingtheAmerican flag pin because it had become a substitute for true patriotism. Obama went back onthis statement when he wore an Israeli-American flag-pin at this speech. That symbol reallysums up Obamas belief in the deep American-Israeli alliance. Obamas rhetoric has allowed himto capture the support of the Jewish vote, with the latestGallup pollshows Obama with 74% ofsupport among Jews and McCain has 22%. Obamas policies towards this conflict must beopposed because his policies will only lead to more conflict and suffering.

Lebanon

During the summer 2006 Lebanon War, Israel ruthlessly bombed Lebanon. Israelattacked key infrastructure across the country and reduced much of Beirut to rubble. During thiswanton bombing campaign, Obama co-sponsoredSenate Resolution 534[109th] that pledgedunqualified support for Israels bombing campaign. This green light from Congress allowed
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullhttp://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.htmlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedyhttp://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedyhttp://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/barackobama.usforeignpolicyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/barackobama.usforeignpolicyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/barackobama.usforeignpolicyhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/http://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspxhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.534:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.534:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.534:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.534:http://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspxhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21138728/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/barackobama.usforeignpolicyhttp://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedyhttp://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.htmlhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


13/25

13

Israel to continue to bomb Lebanon in one of the grossest display of aerial bombardment sincethe War in Iraq. Obama should not have supported giving Israel a carte blanche for its attack onLebanon.

Iraq

Obamas policy on Iraq, while somewhat encouraging, is also quite troubling. It is goodthat he opposed the Iraq War before it began and that he has called for a withdrawal of troopsfrom Iraq, but a closer look at his policies tells a different story.

Obama has been praised for being opposed to the War in Iraq before it began andstated,I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undeterminedlength, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. He nailed this point on thehead. However, in that same speech he said:

Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I standbefore you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil Warwas 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 thescourge of slavery from our soil. I dont oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for awar the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Pattons Army. He saw the deadand dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who firstentered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of thatarsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I dontoppose all wars.

He is not opposed to all wars and even speaks in gushing terms about some wars. While it is finenot to be opposed to all wars this statement qualifies his opposition before the War in Iraq. TheWar in Iraq was not in the best interests of America, hence he opposed it. However, in othercasessuch as the nebulous Global War on Terrorhe believes that warfare is necessary (seethe later discussion on Pakistan). So Obama is no pacifist, he just opposed dumb wars.

His opposition to the war was easier said than actually done. When he came to theSenate, hevotedto continue funding the war. His previous opposition to the Iraq War reallydoesnt mean as much as his vote to continue to fund the war. His actions speak louder than hiswords and those actions are quite deleterious.

Obama has laid out a plan for Iraq. He wrotethat:

As Ive said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were carelessgetting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove themin 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010two years from now, and more thanseven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq wouldperform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress,training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. [Emphasisadded]

The sixteen month time-frame seemed to go over well with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki whosaid, US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about sixteen months. That, we
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speechhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speechhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speechhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/headlineshttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/headlineshttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/headlineshttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/headlineshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech


14/25

14

think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.More recently, Iraq has said that the US should withdrawwithin 12 months. However, there wasa rather large caveat that Obama made. He argued that the US would leave behind a residualforce in Iraq. So although he says hes going to withdraw all troops from Iraq, hes actuallygoing to leave some behind. How big would this residual force be? Obama did not say, but

advisers leakedthat it could reach 50,000.This shouldnt be surprising to anyone that has closely followed the war. America hasbuilt permanentmega-basesin Iraq and does not appear to be willing to completely withdraw.America will stay in Iraq despite the fact that we are hemorrhaging money at an unsustainablerate to maintain an unpopular occupation of an oil-rich country. The Iraqis want us out andObama arrogantly talks about leaving behind residual forces. Furthermore, Obamarefusestorule out the controversial use of contractors in Iraq. Jeremy Scahill, author of the bookBlackwater, hassaid:

The reality is, and Barack Obama knows this very well, his Iraq plan could not beimplemented if he was against the use of Blackwater or other private security forces. And

the reality is, hes probably going to have to use these companies for two to three years ata minimum, unless he makes it an aggressive point of trying to shut them down. He mighteven have to use Blackwater for the first year of his administration.

Blackwater is the infamous mercenary group contracted by the US military to provide security inIraq and has perpetrated numerous crimes against innocent civilians such as in the Nisour SquareMassacre.

Obamas continued support for funding the war, his plan to leave a residual force, and hisprobable use of contractors in Iraq is highly suspicious. Obama is not in favor of a unilateralwithdrawal in Iraq and he must be pressured to adopt a better Iraq policy.

India

Arguably the most important issue between Indian-American relations has been theIndian Nuclear Agreement. In 2005, George W. Bush put forward a plan to transfer nucleartechnology and materials to India. He wanted to make this deal with India in spite of the fact thatIndia had not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has an active nuclear weaponsprogram. Bush argued that the deal was needed to strengthen the Americas relationship withIndia, it will provide a green source of energy for India, and that it will provide billions ofdollars of trade in nuclear technology. Detractors of this flawed agreement noted that it wouldincrease nuclear proliferation, it would be a disincentive for countries to join or remain party tothe nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it would spur a nuclear technology race betweenIndia and Pakistan. The negatives far outweigh any gains and this agreement should be opposed.When this Indian Nuclear Agreement came before the Senate this October, Obama voted infavorof it. He has basically voted to increase nuclear proliferation and the true irony of this piece oflegislation is seen when it comes to the issue of Iran.

Iran

Obamas policies towards Iran are terrible. While he offers to talk with the leaders of Iranwith some preconditions, he has resorted to bellicose rhetoric on Iran. He has consistently stated
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668.htmlhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahillhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahillhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahillhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/2/blackwater_jeremy_scahill_onhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/2/blackwater_jeremy_scahill_onhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/2/blackwater_jeremy_scahill_onhttp://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=9&go.y=11http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=9&go.y=11http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=9&go.y=11http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=9&go.y=11http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/2/blackwater_jeremy_scahill_onhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahillhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usa


15/25

15

that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran and that America should put more sanctionson the Iranian regime. Why? Because they have a suspected nuclear weapons program.

Of course, all of the evidence points to the fact that Iran is not pursing a nuclear weaponsprogram; rather it is pursing the use of nuclear energy, a right guaranteed to Iran since it is asignatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)a

report that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agenciesreleased inDecember of 2007stateswith high confidence that Iran is not running a nuclear weaponsdevelopment program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that Iran has madesubstantial progress in addressing the issue of nuclear enrichment. There have already beenfour UN Security Council resolutions passed against Irans nuclear energy program although Iraninsists that it is only for peaceful means.

So what is Obamas position? In his address to AIPAC, Obama said:

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. Itpursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospectof a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and

threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goalwill be to eliminate this threat.

There are a number of errors in this statement. As Stephen Zunesnoted:

[The President of Iran Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, never actually threatened to wipe Israeloff the map nor has he demonstrated a newly hostile Iranian posture toward the Jewishstate. Not only was this oft-quoted statement a mistranslationthe idiom does not existin Farsi and the reference was to the dissolution of the regime, not the physicaldestruction of the nationthe Iranian president was quoting from a statement byAyatollah Khomeini from over 20 years earlier. In addition, he explicitly told our groupon September 26 that there was no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflictand that it was not Irans intention to destroy Israel.

Furthermore, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons technology. What would a handful of nuclearweapons do in comparison to Israels150or more nuclear weapons? Israel holds anoverwhelming nuclear deterrent over Iran, a country which hasnt attacked anyone in overtwohundred years. Why is Israelwhich is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treatyallowed to have nuclear weapons and Iranwhich clearly does not have nuclear weaponsreceive sanctions for a peaceful nuclear enrichment program? Why does India get Americannuclear technology and Iran is isolated for its miniscule attempts in comparison to develop apeaceful nuclear energy program? Obama expanded on his hypocrisy during his AIPAC speechby also stating:

We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the tableto defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives toconfrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ref=ushttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ref=ushttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ref=ushttp://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4592http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4592http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4592http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9229http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9229http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9229http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9229http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4592http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ref=us


16/25


17/25

17

In fact, things are getting worse and worse. How many of you know about the fact thatviolence is up 50 percent since last year in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a country thats,by the way, 50 percent bigger in size than Iraq, has a population four million more thanIraq. This is not about a hierarchy of oppression; its simply for comparison purposes. So,

last year, violence up by 50 percent; 140 suicide bombings in a country that had neverreally seen suicide bombings as a phenomenon before December 2005; over 50,000NATO troops, of which about half are US soldiers; US soldiers dying at a rate higherthan dying in Iraq, that is, per soldier, more US soldiers dying in Afghanistan than inIraq.

The cycle of violence has intensified. The journalist Nir Rosennotedthat:

Officials on the ground in Afghanistan say it is foolhardy to believe that the Americanscan prevail where the Russians failed. At the height of the occupation, the Soviets had120,000 of their own troops in Afghanistan, buttressed by roughly 300,000 Afghan

troops. The Americans and their allies, by contrast, have 65,000 troops on the ground,backed up by only 137,000 Afghan security forces - and they face a Taliban who enjoythe support of a well-funded and highly organized network of Islamic extremists. "Theend for the Americans will be just like for the Russians," says a former commander whoserved in the Taliban government. "The Americans will never succeed in containing theconflict. There will be more bleeding. It's coming to the same situation as it did for thecommunist forces, who found themselves confined to the provincial capitals."

Afghanistan is the graveyard for empires. The Afghans defeated the British in the nineteenthcentury, the Soviets in the twentieth century, and the Americans in the twenty-first century. Oneof the central reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union was imperial overstretch. Americawill suffer the same fate if we continue down imperial path of hubris. In Afghanistan, Kabul hasbecome President Hamid Karzais fiefdom under the aegis of US-led NATO forces. If Obamaexpands the war in Afghanistan, collateral damage will increase which will serve as a recruitingtool for Al Qaeda, the conflict will intensify, and the process of reconstruction will be hampered.The only solution to Afghanistan is at the negotiating table. Obama must stop his pugnaciousefforts to escalate the war in Afghanistan and begin serious negotiations with all elements ofAfghan society.

Sudan

Obama doesnt appreciate the complexities of the problems in Sudan. Obama hassaidthat Genocide is underway in Darfur, Sudan. He has called for sanctions on Sudan and formore international peacekeepers to be deployed to Darfur. While the 28,000 strong hybridAfrican Union-United Nations peacekeeping forces have been a positive development for Darfur,the conflict itself cannot be resolved by threatening further sanctions. The conflict can only beresolved through principled diplomacy, as the Second Sudanese Civil War proved. Furthermore,the UN hasfoundthat crimes against humanity have been committed in Darfur, not genocide.There is an important distinction to be made here, particularly since it is important to emphasizethat there is aresource-based conflictbetween an insurgency and alleged government supportedmilitias. Thats not to take away from the gravity of the situation there; however, the issue of
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_wonhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_wonhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_wonhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_from_Barack_Obama_on_Darfur,_Sudanhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_from_Barack_Obama_on_Darfur,_Sudanhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_from_Barack_Obama_on_Darfur,_Sudanhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/international/africa/01sudan.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/international/africa/01sudan.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/international/africa/01sudan.htmlhttp://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/22751/2007/02/29-160556-1.htmhttp://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/22751/2007/02/29-160556-1.htmhttp://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/22751/2007/02/29-160556-1.htmhttp://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/22751/2007/02/29-160556-1.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/international/africa/01sudan.htmlhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_from_Barack_Obama_on_Darfur,_Sudanhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_won


18/25

18

Darfur can be resolved through peaceful means. Hyperbolic language and threats of sanctionswill not help. Obama needs to revise his approach to Sudan.

Economic Policy

The financial crisis has catapulted economic issues to the top of many peoples minds.

What follows is a brief discussion of the weaknesses ofObamas economic policies as seen byhis choice of advisers, views on free trade, green issues, and the Wall Street bailout package.

Advisers:

Obama has picked a variety of economic advisers to help him craft an economic policy.He has advisers such as billionare investor Warren Buffet, former Federal Reserve ChairmanPaul Volker, and economist Jason Furman. Of this group, Furman appears to be the weakestpillar, as he has been described as a prominentdefenderof Wal-Mart and he labeled it aprogressive success story. Wal-Mart has come under attack for being anti-union, paying low-wages, and becoming a monopoly that has shut down hundreds of mom-and-pop stores. What ismore troubling, however, than Furman is Obamas stance on free trade.

Free trade:

Free trade has come under increasing scrutiny for its deleterious effects on workersrights, exporting of jobs abroad, and encouraging a poor environmental record. The major freetrade agreement that has put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of their manufacturing jobsis the North American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement was crafted by President Clintonin an effort to create a free trade zone for Mexico, America, and Canada. During the primaries,Obama correctlyarguedthat NAFTA had been devastating and a big mistake and suggestedthat he would unilaterally opt-out of it to make the agreement more favorable for workers. Oncehe had clinched the Democratic nomination for President, Obama backtracked andsaid,Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. This statement,however, fits into his repeated claims that he is a free trader and he has backed this position upby votingfora free trade agreement with Peru. Obama should not have changed his position onNAFTA and should demand fair trade agreements. Furthermore, he should oppose the infamousanti-labor Taft-Hartley Act (1947). Obama needs to stand up for workers rights and stopcoddling corporate interests.

Green Issues:

On a generalized level, Obama has a pretty good approach to green issues. However, hisapproach to the use of ethanol and nuclear energy is flawed.

Obama has embraced the use of ethanol in spite of its high costs environmental costs. Anarticle in theNew York Timesnoted:

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have beencritical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusinessconglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently ascorn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for foodstock has been diverted to ethanol production.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/kleinhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/kleinhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/kleinhttp://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/05/business/fi-peru5http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/05/business/fi-peru5http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/05/business/fi-peru5http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.htmhttp://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/05/business/fi-peru5http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein


19/25

19

Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used toproduce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lowerproduction costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugarcane is a more efficient source.

So why does Obama support the energy inefficient ethanol? Because he is from a corn-producingstate and believes that it is a good alternative energy source. An article in the Guardian/UKhasnoted:

ethanol has been blamed for contributing to the devastating global rise in food prices.The huge demand for corn to feed the 178 US distilleries that now pockmark the mid-west has diverted the supply from food markets and distorted international trade. About athird of American corn is now gobbled up by the industry, and the price of corn morethan doubled to a peak of $5 (3.15) a bushel earlier this year.

Yet Obama has continued to back the $33bn spent by the federal government every year

to subsidise ethanol at the pump

Ethanol is a poor idea in the approach towards finding alternative energy sources. Obamasethanol policy needs to be opposed.

Obama has also called for the building of new nuclear power plants to deal withAmericas growing energy demand. This idea is severely flawed. Nuclear energy is a bad ideabecause there has been no solution for how to store nuclear waste, the plants provide a target forterrorist attacks, it is uneconomical in comparison to other sources of energy, and reactors havehad problems before (e.g. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). The Yucca mountain waste storagefacility remains in abeyance. The Wall Street Journal hasreportedthat the estimated cost ofnuclear reactors has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled in recent years to an average rangingbetween $5 billion to $12 billion per plant. The opportunity cost of nuclear energy is too highand Obama needs to oppose nuclear energy.

Bailout:

Obama supported the $850 billion dollar Wall Street bailout plan. The initial plan wasconceived by the government to buy back toxic securities from banks so that they could continueto function. The plan that was eventually adopted ensured that the government would buy a stakein companies that needed to be rescued. According toone poll, the bailout plan was opposed by55% of Americans, largely because the perception was that this program bailed out the fat catson Wall Street and socialized their losses. People opposed this plan because it seemed a little toomuch like the failed policy of trickle-down economics. Alternatives to this plan existed and someoffered to freeze mortgage defaults or help directly to Americans with bad mortgages. Obamadecided to stick to the trickle-down approach and the effects are yet to be seen. What isabundantly clear, however, is that Obama was willing to fund Wall Street but has only offeredmodest funding increases for Main Street. His vote in favor of this bill indicates a willingness toside with corporate interests over those of everyday Americans.

Personal Actions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/27/ethanol-barack-obamahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/27/ethanol-barack-obamahttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/06/chasing_nuclear_energy_windmills/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/06/chasing_nuclear_energy_windmills/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/06/chasing_nuclear_energy_windmills/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econpoll24-2008sep24,0,5343090.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econpoll24-2008sep24,0,5343090.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econpoll24-2008sep24,0,5343090.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econpoll24-2008sep24,0,5343090.storyhttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/06/chasing_nuclear_energy_windmills/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/27/ethanol-barack-obama


20/25

20

Obamas personal actions and statements give an insight into his character and how thiswill reflect on his policy judgments. Obamas actions towards Reverend Wright, campaign-financing, and political opportunism indicate a defect in his character.

Reverend Wright

The Reverend Wright issue was a manufactured controversy to attack Obama for guilt byassociation. Reverend Wright did make some controversial remarks and Obama rightly defendedhim in saying that old sermon clips dont mean much. Eventually, had a Sister Soulja momentand denounced his former pastor. This is the same pastor who had consecrated Obamasmarriage, baptized his children, and been a close friend of Obamas. In spite of all this, Obamasold him out. Instead of defending Reverend Wrights right of free expression and explainingthat he disagreed with him, Obama took the next step and completely renounced him.

The two major issues with this action are that Obama could not stand up to the scrutiny ofthe right-wing attack dogs and he outright rejected what his pastor was saying even if part of hisstatements were true.

Obamas inability to stand up to smear campaign is indicative of how he would act when

he has to make tough decisions. Obama has been very incrementalist thus far in his politics,always preferring to avoid controversy (as seen by his FISA and Bailout votes) rather than makea principled stand. If Obama couldnt stand up for someone who was a close friend of his, howwill he treat Muslim Americans who he has quite clearly snubbed?

Also, consider the Reverend Wrights arguments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Wright was correct to put the onus of blame on the Israeli aggressor, not the Palestinian victim.Obamas statement on this issue, as discussed before, is clearly flawed. Perhaps Obama shouldhave just defended his friends right to freedom of speech rather than selling him out because ofpolitical pressure.

Campaign-Finance

Obamas flip-flop on this issue has spelt the death-knell for campaign finance reform.Obama initiallypromisedto accept public financing for his Presidential election but laterrenegedon that promise. Consequently, Obama has raised over$600 millionfor his campaignand has outspent McCain by 4-to-1. The overwhelming majority of his campaign contributionshave come from big donors (donations of more than $200). Amy Goodman, the host ofDemocracyNow!,wrotethat:

Obama's campaign is credited with receiving an unprecedented number of smalldonations from among its historic 3.1 million donors. Campaign manager David Plouffesays the campaign's average donation is under $100. A Washington Post analysis ofFederal Election Commission data shows, though, that only a quarter of this vast numberof donors fall into the "small" category (under $200), which is a smaller percentage thanthat achieved by George Bush in his 2004 run.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks campaigncontributions, the funds raised in presidential campaigns has skyrocketed. The 1976campaign, the first campaign that included public financing, saw a total of $171 millionraised (about $570 million, adjusted for inflation). The current campaign weighs in atclose to $1.6 billion, and the group expects the total to reach $2.4 billion. While
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/the_future_of_public_campaign_financehttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/the_future_of_public_campaign_financehttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/does_obamas_record_setting_fundraising_markhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/does_obamas_record_setting_fundraising_markhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/does_obamas_record_setting_fundraising_markhttp://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/does_obamas_record_setting_fundraising_markhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/the_future_of_public_campaign_financehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html


21/25

21

donations to candidates are supposed to be limited to $2,300 for the general election (anadditional $2,300 is allowed for the primary season, per candidate), huge loopholes exist.Most notable are the "joint fundraising committees," in which the presidential candidatepartners with his party to form a fundraising organization. McCain and the RepublicanNational Committee's is called McCain Victory 2008 and can receive donations as high

as $70,000, which then get distributed to the presidential campaign, the national party andto key state parties. Obama and the Democratic National Committee created the ObamaVictory Fund, to which donors could give $28,500. As The Washington Post justreported, the Democrats found that sum too limiting, so they created the Committee forChange, which allows donors to give up to $65,500. That's a helluva lot of change.

Obama has decided to buy his way into the White House and his big donors expect that theirinterests will be heard if he becomes President. The ethanol industry and agribusiness clearlyhold sway over Obama and he is more than willing to give kickbacks to those who support him,as his$740 million dollarsin earmark requests attest to. Every Presidential candidate since 1976has accepted public financing for their campaigns except for Obama. This forebodes ill for

grassroots democracy in America and Obama has set a terrible precedent.

Political Opportunism

Obamas opting out of public-financing should come as no surprise to anyone who hasfollowed his political career.

In Obamas 1996 run for State Senate, he received the support of Alice Palmer who heldthe seat but had decided to run for Congress. Palmer wasnt able to pass her primary battle andended up trying to run for her old seat in the State Senate. Obama was able to get her disqualifiedfrom being on the ballot because of invalid petition signatures and ran unopposed in the primary.He then easily won the State Senate seat in a heavily Democratic district.

Obama learned quickly about what greased the wheels in Illinois politics. He viewed hisspot in the State Senate as a stepping stone for bigger and better things. A New Yorkerarticledescribed Obamas development:

E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 columnafter Daley was relected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfullyexplained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms,developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new adcampaigns necessary for relection. They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10million war chest, Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially criticalof some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing thepractice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possessis candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

Obama understood that he could win an election with enough money. After he lost badly whilerunning for Congress, Obama decided to reorder his political strategy. When Democrats tookover the Illinois Senate in 2002, Obama moved quickly to gerrymander his Senate district so thathe could receive funding and support for his anticipated run for the U.S. Senate. The articlecontinues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizzahttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizzahttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/08

Obama a False Hope

Documents

Transcript of Obama a False Hope