Clinton and Obama: Failures on War and Global Warming

topic posted Fri, February 8, 2008 - 1:21 PM by  Unsubscribed
Clinton and Obama: Failures on War and Global Warming


Today, every national academy of science of the industrialized world recognizes human caused global warming as a fact. These include the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who explicitly use the word "consensus" on the issue.

The problem of global warming is one that will, and is, devastating the planet’s environment, causing mass extinction of species while also destroying agricultural and habitable land through rising oceans, more severe hurricanes, droughts, more unpredictable weather, increases in tropical diseases, year round freezing weather with a potential ice age in the northern hemisphere combined with higher temperatures closer to the equator, and the potential of runaway global warming with the melting of the ocean’s methane hydride that could actually cause the extinction of the human species.

Despite the severity of the problem, and despite the United States being the biggest contributor to global warming in the world, the U.S. government and corporate leaders continue to do worse than nothing, through blocking and sabotaging all potential solutions for the past fifty years up until the present. This is due to the massive profits that continue to be made by the big oil corporations, and the political strength they have in being able to buy the politicians in Washington.

On the biggest question facing humanity, human caused global warming, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ignoring the urgent proposals of global warming experts and instead put forward conservative proposals of carbon credit trading for big corporations and proposals for so-called “cleaner” fuels for cars. Carbon credit trading, giving big corporations the “right” to buy and sell the “right” to pollute, will undermine the ability to pass other legislation that can better curb carbon pollution. And the “cleaner” bio-fuels being proposed make no substantial difference because it takes energy involving carbon emissions to grow the plants used to make bio-fuels. In addition, rainforests that would help remove global warming causing carbon from the atmosphere are being cleared to grow bio-fuels. To make matters worse, converting food-stuffs and croplands to bio-fuels increases world food prices, causing increased world hunger.

What is really needed, as opposed to the pro-oil industry measures of Obama and Clinton, is an immediate emergency program to begin the process of reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 through converting to green technologies such as solar, energy conservation, and eliminating the combustion engine by going electric and cleaning up the grid. Such a program would also create jobs and could be paid for through cutting the military budget. To develop this program it will be important to nationalize the energy industries under the democratic control of society in order to run them for human and environmental needs, and to eliminate private energy’s corrupting influence on politics, where they promote policies of war and pollution. Socialists offer these real solutions. Meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans have made human caused global warming a reality by promoting the policies that have caused it, even though the problem was known 50 years ago. Once again in this election, the Democrats have offered no real solutions to this problem that we are running out of time to address.

Just as the energy industries are promoting the destruction of the planet through carbon emissions, they, along with the powerful weapons industries, promote the mass murder of war as well.

In September 2007, when asked if he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 Barack Obama said "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

Similarly Hillary Clinton Said, “I agree with Barack” ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC", New York Times 9/26/07).

The U.S. must leave by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible. Citing fear of violence and civil war is the oldest trick in the dirty book of imperialist oppression. U.S. imperialism has created a horrible situation, but that is no excuse to stay, and U.S. troops, Halliburton, etc. are only making matters worse. Over a million Iraqis are dead. These deaths are not just caused by the civil war that the U.S. has ignited, nor are they just caused by the death-squad government that the U.S. has put in power. U.S. guns and bombers are also the direct cause of a large number of deaths. Iraq needs to be turned over to the Iraqi people through immediate withdrawal.

Not only do Obama and Clinton make no promise to get out of Iraq, both have both voted for war appropriations. This puts them both in the position of having directly supported the war.

In addition, Clinton voted to invade Iraq. Obama was not yet in the Senate, so he didn’t vote on that resolution. Yet on the verge of the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq Barack Obama repeated Bush’s lies at an anti-war rally stating, “He [Saddam Hussein] has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.” (Obama, 10/2002 Speech, Federal Plaza)

Last year Hillary Clinton stated she has no remorse for her murderous decision of voting to invade Iraq saying, "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." (Hillary Clinton, “No regret on Iraq Vote”, CNN.Com)

In trying to let themselves off the hook many Democrats claim that Bush "did not fairly represent intelligence". Feeble cries by these politicians today that their votes for war weren't their fault because they were lied to by Bush not only make them look stupid, they are an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

While the Democrats helped promote the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no right to defend itself, Liberation News pointed out that it is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction. Instead of war, we supported the right of Iraq to acquire the weapons necessary to defend themselves from U.S. aggression. There can be little doubt that if Iraq had acquired those weapons they might not be in the mess they are now.

Yet for the Democrats a Republicans Iraqi weapons were never the real motive for mass murder in Iraq. The capitalist ruling class, and their Democrat and Republican representatives, thought that they could use their superior military power to quickly move into Iraq and establish by force a stable neo-colonial puppet regime, and then make massive profits from the privatization of the Iraqi economy, especially oil. It is the failures of this imperialist plan, in the face of Iraqi resistance and growing unpopularity at home, that has forced some Democrats to pretend to distance themselves from the same Bush policies that they actually support.

Just as Liberation News opposes the U.S. occupation and corporate looting of Iraq, we also denounced the starvation blockade that was carried out through the UN by the Bill Clinton administration. That blockade cost the lives of about a million people, many of them children. While the number of deaths was partly due to the capitalist nature of Iraqi economy, and a socialist economy like that of Cuba could have made sure that everyone in Iraq had food, blame for this mass murder should also be put on the Bill Clinton administration. Likewise, it was this Clinton starvation blockade that also weakened Iraq for the Bush invasion.

Today, while the U.S. occupation of Iraq has murdered well over a million people and the U.S. starvation blockade of Iraq murdered a million or more, the U.S. government and its puppets in Iraq had the nerve to put Saddam Hussein on trial, and execute him, for propaganda purposes. Yet the worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were also carried out when he was directly backed by the United States. In the 1980's the U.S. was giving massive military assistance to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein commit genocide against Kurds and carry out a bloody war with Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein was being used as an asset of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise, the CIA helped Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party come to power, supplying them with the names of 5,000 socialists and labor leaders that the Ba'athists subsequently rounded up and executed.

Yet to those who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be a chance for the U.S. to finally set things straight and set up a democracy in Iraq, Liberation News responded before the U.S. invasion saying:

"In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein's capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons, socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists...

"While defending Iraq against imperialist attack, and supporting their right to defend themselves, socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal..."

"U.S. imperialism will never solve the question of women's liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.

"The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise, they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. will squander on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States instead." -From Liberation News: What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq

What was predicted is reality. Those predictions were not from a crystal ball. They were accurate because they were based on the past behavior of U.S. imperialism. Today in Iraq the U.S. has set up a puppet Islamic government with functioning death squads and torture chambers. Socialists have been excluded from participating in elections and unarmed demonstrators have been shot down and murdered in the streets by U.S. troops and troops of the puppet Iraqi government. The puppet Islamic government also opposes women's rights and women's rights have deteriorated dramatically since the U.S. invasion. The rebuilding of basic infrastructure, such as electricity, has lagged way behind what was rebuilt by Saddam Hussein after the massive U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 1992. The invasion has also set off a civil war that, combined with U.S. bombings and other murder, has killed over a million Iraqis, and forced millions more to flee their homes as refugees.

With the exception of the privatization of Iraqi oil, all of the predictions have shown themselves to be true and the only reason that Iraqi oil isn't completely under the direct control of U.S. oil monopolies now is because of the union resistance of 23,000 organized oil workers as well as the general resistance by the Iraqi people to the idea of Iraq's resources being looted by U.S. corporations.

For the working class in the United States there is ever growing frustration with a war that is costing many lives and nearly half-a-trillion dollars while needed programs for healthcare, jobs, the environment, and disaster relief do not get the funding they need. Just as the new imperialist masters of Iraq have shown a criminal lack of interest in the rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, so too they left the people of New Orleans to die.

Yet for the ruling class, their failure in Iraq is not in the murderous, undemocratic, and anti-woman puppet regime they have set up and the money that has been squandered in doing it, but in the failure of that regime to deliver the stability needed to acquire the oil loot. They complain that oil production in Iraq is below prewar levels and the occupation by U.S. and British troops serve as targets for the insurgency.

The words of Hillary Clinton make abundantly clear that what she opposes is not the oil war itself, but the fact that Bush is not winning it:

"Let us not confuse the leadership's failures with either the remaining mission in Iraq or the war on terrorism or with our support for our troops. What we have here is a failure of leadership to accomplish that mission. What was hailed as our shortest war has now become one of our longest. What was hailed as a model of democracy teeters on the brink of complete anarchy. What was the leadership that quickly claimed credit for success has been lethargic in the face of misjudgments and setbacks." Hillary Clinton

Likewise, Barack Obama has made similar complaints, saying that Bush should have sent more troops into Iraq.

Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, socialists see nothing good that can come from the continuation of the U.S. war against Iraq. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is doing nothing for anybody except the capitalists that are profiting from the war and the tax dollars of the American people. We call for no support to the Democrats and we demand: Iraq to the Iraqis! U.S. Out Now!

Liberation News calls for ending the war and global warming through becoming better organized; building the mass movement in the streets; striking with political demands against arms producers and polluters; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks as has been done on a few occasions along the west coast; becoming ungovernable; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise, we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist these wars. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz who have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for the nationalization of the energy industry, building the socialist movement, voting socialist, and ultimately ending imperialism and environmental destruction through a socialist revolution holding high the principles of an egalitarian socialist economy used for human and environmental needs rather than profit, an economy controlled by the people through full democratic rights and universal suffrage.

Also see:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It By STEVEN ARGUE

Closing Our Eyes Won’t Make Racial and Ethnic Inequalities Disappear

This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
posted by:
  • Unsu...
    To bad we don't have Stalin, or a Mao running in 08.
    • Unsu...
      So I guess Dustin loves Stalin and Mao.

      I certainly don't.

      As I've said many times, I'm not a Stalinist or Maoist.

      But the truth has never stopped Dustin's lies and slanders.

      Obviously Dustin is too stupid to refute my article on its merits so he's just gotta make-up McCarthyite garbage against me.
      • Unsu...
        Dustin keeps bringing up this accusation, and I keep answering it, but here is another statement I made a couple days ago opposing one party rule:

        On the question of the Cuban revolution, Norma claims that Cuba is democratic. The Cuban socialist system has done much to better the lives of the people, but to call that one-party system democratic is truly absurd. The right to form tendencies within the Cuban Communist Party does not exist, nor does the right to form opposition political parties, nor opposition press. To vote in elections where opposition is not allowed is not workers’ democracy, but dictatorship of the Communist Party.

        While the Cuban socialism has achieved much, one key ingredient for a healthy society is missing. That ingredient is democracy. A similar observation was made of the Soviet Union in 1918 by German socialist Leader Rosa Luxemburg. While being supportive of the Russian revolution, she was at the same time opposed to the dictatorial methods of the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky in the Soviet Union. Rosa Luxemburg instead advocated democratic communism.

        The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, were swept to power in a popular revolution that called for an end to the war with Germany, land reform, and socialism. Besides the betterment this revolution meant for the workers and peasants in general, including access to healthcare and education, giant strides forward were made for oppressed nationalities, Jews, women's rights, and gay rights. Before the revolution, under Czarist rule, Jews were routinely slaughtered in the thousands in government-sponsored pogroms. Peasants were the property of feudal landlords, and huge numbers of drafted young peasants were dying in the inter-imperialist war with Germany. This all ended with the Russian Revolution. In addition, gay rights and the right to abortion were legalized for the first time in any country with the birth of the Soviet Union and backward anti-woman practices such as bride-price and forced marriage were made illegal. Priorities were made of literacy and meeting the basic needs of the people. These were huge advances made by a revolution that had inherited a poor economically backward nation, soon to be further devastated by civil war and the invasion of many imperialist armies.

        Yet, Rosa Luxemburg, while praising the advances made by the Russian Revolution, did not excuse the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union. She saw the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a completely different way than Lenin and Trotsky. She saw this simply as the toiling majority becoming the dictators over the capitalist minority that once held power. For that majority to actually be in charge, however, they would need democratic organs, universal suffrage, and democratic rights. For Lenin and Trotsky, the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" fit more into bourgeois models of individual dictatorship by those in power. As Rosa Luxemburg states in her 1918 work, the “Russian Revolution”:

        “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only a bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders with inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule [...] a dictatorship, to be sure, but not dictatorship of the proletariat [...].” (Luxemburg)

        A different position by Lenin and Trotsky more in league with that of Rosa Luxemburg would have produced a much better and more open society that would have made Stalin's type of rise to power through skullduggery, corruption, and terror within the ranks of the party much more difficult.

        Rosa Luxemburg did not see the question as being counterpoised between bourgeois democracy (democracy for the rich as we have in the United States) on the one hand (defended by "socialists" who had betrayed socialism and become administrators of capitalist exploitation and war), and dictatorial communism on the other. Instead, she rejected both and fought for a socialist society with nationalized industries where the working class has democratic control. It is this essential banner of democratic socialism and communism that must be fully revived in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and in order for people to take our movements for environmental survival and socialism seriously and want any part in them.

        It was a very unfortunate error of history that the first socialist revolution was carried out with the anti-democratic errors of Lenin and Trotsky. Due to the influence of that revolution, both morally and financially, those errors were copied by most socialist revolutions after, including the Cuban revolution. While recognizing the advantages of the Cuban socialist model over U.S. imposed dictatorship and a corporate controlled economy, it is important not to repeat their undemocratic errors.

        Yet, there is nothing inherently democratic about a private economy. As was shown in the example publicly owned power in LA with the ability of the people to shut down unsafe nuclear power plants, public ownership is more democratic than private ownership. Private ownership allows a few extremely wealthy people to control not only industrial policies where public input and control is essential for a healthy environment, but their private control of vast financial resources also gives them control of the two established political parties in the United States. Public ownership on a wider scale, with a broadly socialized economy, tied to full democratic rights and universal suffrage, will allow the United States to become a much more democratic country than it is today, and will allow the people of this country to begin the measures needed to save the planet.
  • Unsu...
    Uhhh China? India?

    At any rate the whole thing is a boondoggle engineered by the social commies of old europe as a wealth transfer mechanism.
    Humans are not responsible for climate change the sun is the universe is the earth is. Denying that the most powerful drivers (Sun, Cosmos, Earth) of climate are vastly more powerful than humans could ever be is simply stupid shit.

    • Unsu...
      Cliff says, "Uhhh China? India?"

      They've been catching up to the U.S. in carbon emissions, but are not anywhere near the U.S. in per-capita emissions, nor the historic output of the US.

      As for the power of the sun in relation to atmospheric carbon and methane as well as carbon sinks and positive feed-back mechanisms, all of these things are being looked at by scientists, and as global warming escalates at an ever increasing rate, scientific predictions are become increasingly dire.
      • Unsu...
        Carbon Schmarbon. There is nothing demonstrating that Carbon drives temperature. Water vapor is 7 times more potent.

        The only reason the idiot left latched onto carbon is because it's the universal solvent. It is the one thing that all sophisticated nations produce in plenty. That makes it an easy tax and spend target. There is no other reason. All the pseudo science around it was targeted politically.
        • Unsu...

          The one thing that has increased as the earth's temperature has gone up is atmospheric carbon, not atmospheric water.

          Invented by the left?

          The first scientist to discuss global warming was Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius, a well-known chemist who made many discoveries of modern chemistry, who in 1896 warned that a doubling of the world's atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase the world's temperatures by five to six degrees Celsius. With catastrophic implications, this is very close to many current predictions. By 1957, scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California put out the first warnings about human caused global warming that were taken seriously by the scientific community. Yet despite this information being readily available for fifty years, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations failed to act in a favorable way at that time, and presently they continue to be an obstacle to action on global warming.


          Today, every national academy of science of the industrialized world recognizes human caused global warming as a fact. These include the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who explicitly use the word "consensus" on the issue.
          • " Water? "

            Water vapour is a feedback mechanism in human induced climate change..
            CO2 is the main forcing..
            If you want to adress denialist trying to cause confusion.
            Real climate is a good source.. Check out the bio's of these scientist..

            For every myth the corporate lobby tries to sell they have a good scientific response..
            And it also is a good blog to get a little deeper knowledge of the subject..

            Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
            6 April 2005
            — gavin @ 7:51 PM - (Deutsch)
            "While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). To demonstrate how quickly water reacts, I did a GCM experiment where I removed all the water in the atmosphere and waited to see how quickly it would fill up again (through evaporation from the ocean) . The result is shown in the figure. It's not a very exciting graph because the atmosphere fills up very quickly. At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it's back to within 1%. That's less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time."

            • Unsu...
              Thanks Harmon. Your article answers what seemed intuitively obvious to me, that the relatively short residence time of water in the atmosphere, as compared to carbon dioxide and methane, minimizes the impact of anthropogenic water vapor input as compared to carbon pollution.

              As for water vapor being a positive feedback mechanism, the article states:

              “Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.”

              So the verdict seems to still be out on that.
  • I think this is one of your better articles Steven..

    I agree that global warming a crucial problem facing humanity and that neither Clinton nor Obama are capable of making a significant contribution to tackle this problem..

    Bush lied about the cause of global warming and the state of scientific knowledge, he also censored several scientist and the world hates him because of it..The next generation will hate him much more..

    Clinton and Obama sell another lie..
    "we can have continued economic growth and solve global warming by soft half baked measures"
    The sad reality is that global warming is a disaster now no matter what we do..
    But "business as usual and change a light bulb" will lead to catastrophe..(Clinton and Obama policy)

    I am convinced we can only succesfully adress the global warming crisis if we question the economic growth paradigm..
    Clinton and Obama are not capable of that because their corporate bosses will not let them..

    So the future looks kind of pale...

    By the way...
    Here is new dire scientific report on global warming that makes the IPCC look rosy..

    Climate code Red..

    • Unsu...
      Thanks Harmen.

      This is also another good site you've posted here.

      While I do agree that the future is grim no matter what happens, I think that a revolutionary democratic socialist aproach, if it can catch on quickly enough before we've passed too many tipping points, can potentially begin to resolve the problem.

      Private ownership allows a few extremely wealthy people to control not only industrial policies where public input and control is essential for a healthy environment, but their private control of vast financial resources also gives them control of the two established political parties in the United States. Public ownership on a wider scale, with a broadly socialized economy, tied to full democratic rights and universal suffrage, will allow the United States to become a much more democratic country than it is today, and will allow the people of this country to begin the measures needed to save the planet.

      Yet, while all of this may seem reasonable, it does beg the question, “How do you propose to gain such a far reaching goal in a country that has an entrenched power structure that is more engaged in privatization than nationalization?” This is the hardest question. It will take the organization of a revolutionary party firmly committed to these goals that is not interested in compromise with the current power establishment. The goal of such a party must be for power, but history has also shown that such parties and movements can become powerful enough at times to scare the power structure into making some of the needed reforms. Even relatively small parties that stick to radical convictions that seem to be on the very fringes can, in times of discontent and sudden revolutionary turmoil, become the majority. As issues worsen in the United States around war, environmental destruction, lack of healthcare, and a possible coming economic collapse, the possibilities of a sea-change in the relatively passive U.S. population becomes more and more likely.
  • Unsu...
    While Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and McCain are all pro-war and have no real solutions for global warming, there are a number of candidates opposed to the war. Besides anti-war Republican Ron Paul, who on the question of global warming opposes all environmental regulations, each of the following political parties will likely run anti-war candidates:

    Peace and Freedom Party

    Green Party

    Socialist Equality Party

    Socialist Party

    Party for Socialism and Liberation

    Socialist Workers Party

    Workers World Party

    In addition the following are anti-war candidates and likely running whether or not they get their party’s nomination:

    Mike Gravel

    Cynthia McKinney

    And the following are events of anti-war opposition to the Democrats and Republicans.

    DNC Disruption 2008

    RNC Welcoming Committee
    • unless there are cataclysmic changes, humans move slowly.
      for consciousness to change we have to build attractive alternatives
      and build them fast. the problem is we are verging ever closer to
      the disasters of our own making.

      it is doubtful that any of the listed parties will ever amount to anything,
      but building an organization for change should be paramount.
      until then we have to take the little steps toward the left that voters
      are comfortable with. being dogmatic in your approach doesn't help.

      too many are blinded by their comfort zone to recognize the truth.
      but i'd bet they didn't let their kids play in traffic when they were
      young sprouts! of course not, it is intelligent to be cautious
      when danger looms ahead.
      • Unsu...
        "unless there are cataclysmic changes, humans move slowly."

        We are facing cataclysmic changes.

        Those candidates now being widely hailed as the hope for bringing small changes are actually opposed to even small changes. They are are part of the two ruling rightwing corporate parties, pro-war, pro-insuance industry, and will do nothing to stop global warming. They are the problem and not even part of the solution.
    • Also check out this great lecture by the science historian Naomi Oreskes..
      She also makes the link between Global warming Denial and market fundamentalism..
      So please invest your time..
      This is real valuable information, you can learn something here..

      “The American Denial of Global Warming”

      Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008

      Prof. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California-San Diego Science Studies Program, lectures on the history of the global warming disinformation campaign, led by corporate-funded policy operatives and ideologically-driven scientists, who employed the “tobacco strategy” to manipulate public opinion to create an exaggerated sense of uncertainty about scientific evidence on global warming and climatic disruption. (See especially from 26:00 forward in this 58-minute video.)
  • Unsu...
    Tonight, on TV, because of the multiple interruptions, I was never able to answer blatant lies like Obama doesn't get corporate contributions. Perhaps if I just interrupted him the way I was interrupted. Anyway:

    Top Contributors

    Goldman Sachs $421,763
    UBS AG $296,670
    Lehman Brothers $250,630
    National Amusements Inc $245,843
    JP Morgan Chase & Co $240,788
    Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
    Citigroup Inc $221,578
    Exelon Corp $220,267
    Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
    Jones Day $181,996
    Citadel Investment Group $171,798
    Harvard University $164,978
    Time Warner $155,383
    Morgan Stanley $155,196
    Google Inc $150,329
    University of California $140,429
    • Unsu...
      Besides what's been mentioned on Obama.

      Barack Obama as President would be a conventional US imperialist and
      military interventionist. We know this from an article Senator Obama
      wrote in the July-August 2007 issue of the establishment magazine,
      Foreign Affairs. In his article, the Democratic presidential hopeful
      discloses his view that

      --the US must maintain its "clear and strong commitment to Israel's
      security as its "starting point" in the Middle East, helping Israel in
      "isolating those who seek conflict and instability"

      --US diplomacy must "raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear
      program by applying tougher sanctions," and "the world must work to
      stop Iran" in its nuclear undertakings. Obama as President would seek
      to "isolate Iran"

      --Obama thinks the US should "become better prepared to put boots on
      the ground" through military interventions overseas, adding "65,000
      soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines"

      --Obama would "not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary,
      to protect the American people or our vital interests"

      --Obama wants "a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from
      acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons
      program," and he declares, "In confronting these threats, I will not
      take the military option off the table"

      --Obama believes "Success in Afghanistan is still possible" through
      decisive action and building "a twenty-first century military"

      In his article, Obama twice mentions the Cold War positively and
      invokes the interventionists Truman and Kennedy. Combining naïveté
      with illusion, Obama looks back fondly to the classic age of US world

      "It was not all that long ago that farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia
      welcomed American doctors to their villages and hung pictures of JFK
      on their living room walls, when millions, like my father, waited
      every day for a letter in the mail that would grant them the privilege
      to come to America to study, work, live, or just be free. We can be
      this America again. This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of
      our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate
      evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

      It really needs to be added that people throughout Latin America and
      elsewhere would seriously disagree with Obama's claim that being
      dominated by the US "promotes an ultimate good."


Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"