Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Dear H. Wilkinson: Did you report the facts? (2007)•Two Republican Views of War (2007)
•Commenting Rules for The Cincinnati Beacon (2007)
•Evidence of Injustice (2007)
•Open Letter to Henry Heimlich about SALF (2006)
•The Mayor’s Recommendations to the Proposed Budget (2006)
•Know Theatre of Cincinnati Offers Alternative Holiday Entertainment with Christmas Yet To Come (2006)
•Stop the Proclamations! (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Friday, July 04, 2008
Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater, McCain, Obama
Posted by Justin Jeffre
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
Help The Cincinnati Beacon Grow! Participate in Social Networking!
|  |
Members
Register
Tell us what you think!
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
04 Jul 2008 at 07:46 am | #
I can think of no better video to post for the 4th of July!
05 Jul 2008 at 12:33 pm | #
My favorite part was in the very begining when Scahill says the Republicans could run a head of lettuce and they would rally for a head of lettuce. “They mangaged to find a candidate with slightly less charisma than a head of lettuce”, he said.
I don’t think that’s fair though, McCain has every bit as much charisma as a head of lettuce. That stuff about Blackwater is pretty scary though.
06 Jul 2008 at 10:39 am | #
Thanks Justin and the Beacon for this one.
Having already verified most of Jeremy’s points for myself, primarily in an effort to be able to quote specifics to the Cincysuz’s and other idolaters of the manufactured persona that is “Barack Obama”, that their progressive desire to have either a black or a woman as President (among other issues) has been captured and directed in one of the most successful media manipulations I have ever seen, I thank you for this additional tool.
Convincing these starry eyed “changlings” that it is this perception of the benign nature of this manufactured persona that they have been sold that IS the diversion, seems to be stuff of Orwellian proportions.
Watching the corporations preparing this government and the American public for another assault on the sovereignty of South America (the demonization of certain popular leaders, facilitating the production and distribution of drugs worldwide, the re-establishment of the 4th Atlantic Fleet, etc., etc., etc.) all under the guise of protecting them and us from some specious threat is showing something a bit new: provocateurs on contract. WOW
I wonder if Blackwater had to submit bids against Dynacorp or Cisco or the various other “security companies”? I would love to see the particulars of those bids.
06 Jul 2008 at 03:05 pm | #
Ted, you will be pleased to know that there is more video coming from his speech. Youtube only takes 10 minutes at a time.
06 Jul 2008 at 04:26 pm | #
Dealing with reality, that is, that one of the major party candidates WILL BE president, that Congress WILL BE made up of politicians from the two existing major parties and Ralph Nader WILL NOT be president, what now? Posting exposes that are really old news doesn’t solve a problem or propose a solution. I like Jeremy Scahill. He’s a brilliant reporter and political commentator. But just saying aha! Gotcha! I was right!--accomplishes nothing. I read Truthout, The Nation, watch Democracy Now and subscribe to a dozen others just like you Ted Varney. Don’t take so much credit. Since you’re such a brilliant political strategist, not subject to falling for the okie-doke like so many of us dummies, you must have a solution, a plan, a strategy. What is it? While hoping that someday America will be ready for a Dennis Kucinich or a (late) Paul Wellstone or even a Ralph Nader business has to go on. America is not now and very probably never will be ready for a progressive president. That’s why you get 10 people to turn out at an anti-war protest but a thousand to camp out overnight at WalMart to get 10% off the latest fad item they’re told to buy. Americans don’t really give a shit about their government as long as they can still shop. You have to play the cards that are dealt. Be realistic. Is your suggestion to abstain from voting? Join coalitions to put pressure? What? What? What’s your solution? Just regurgitating somebody else’s revelations doesn’t make you a mover and a shaker.
06 Jul 2008 at 05:59 pm | #
Regarding comment number 5:
The “movers and the shakers” are the ones that actually get out there and DO something about the issues, rather than just reading The Nation or watching Democracy Now.
In this instance--it would mean voting for the only candidate that truly represents REAL change, because it’s the only hope we have--not “voting for the lesser of two evils” and / or worrying whether or not your vote is being “wasted” by voting for a candidate outside of the 2 corporate parties…
Will Amerca ever really be ready for a truly progressive candidate? I sure as hell hope so--it’s the only real chance we’ve got....
In the mean time, what should we do? Continue organizing people, even if it’s’ just a few to begin with, to stand up for what’s right--even if it is against the odds. So many major social reforms began this way.
When I get frustrated with corruption within our government and within our social structure, I try to remember this quote: “Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has...”
If that’s not radical enough for you--I’m not sure what else to say--other than it’s better than hiding behind a magazine, a television screen, or a computer--seeking information, but doing nothing with the knowledge (other than using it to complain) once it is received.
06 Jul 2008 at 07:58 pm | #
Again #6 let’s deal with reality. Either McCain or Obama WILL be president. Do you disagree? Since I don’t know you and you don’t know me and you like making assumptions, I’m also going to assume, and I bet I’m right, that you are also hiding behind a magazine, television screen or computer pretending that you’re making a difference but actually not doing squat. I doubt that you’re on the lecture circuit or doing guerilla actions. Be specific. What are you actually doing that is changing the political landscape in America? Going to protests? Me too. Signing on-line petitions? Me too. Writing letters? Me too. Withholding donations? Me too. Is America ready for a progressive candidate? What are you Rip Van Winkle? Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? If we could just bump up from neo-con to moderate or even liberal that would be progress. Do you even live in America?
You don’t get it. You can’t get it. But go ahead and vote for Nader (I guess maybe you can write him in) instead of getting together with others to put pressure on the guy that actually will be president. Be a non-entity. Be irrelevant. That certainly serves the status quo nicely.
06 Jul 2008 at 08:11 pm | #
cincysuz, as much as I find nearly everything you write irritating, I found that observation to be quite insightful. I never juxtaposed the two like that.
Very troubling, that observation… Hmm.
06 Jul 2008 at 08:15 pm | #
I think Cincinnati is ready for a cash register exorcism, at Fountain Square:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_81/whythismanhatesstarbucks.html
06 Jul 2008 at 08:48 pm | #
In response to Comment 7:
I have not been alive for 50 years dear, so maybe we’ll just chalk my idealism up to the “disillusion of youth”.
What am I doing?
I chose a career path that is dedicated to change and social reform. I have educated myself extensively, so that I may give others the tools they need, should they also be interested in promoting reform.
Yes, I go to protests, organize protests, circulate petitions, volunteer extensively for causes I believe in, donate money and time to organizations that are worthwhile. In short, I do whatever I can to make a difference--
Is it enough? Not always. Sometimes it’s very discouraging. But if one person is inspired to join my cause after a lecture I give, a petition I take the time to explain to them, or after reading an email I sent out--that’s enough for me.
Change does not happen overnight. I know it is difficult to realize this in an era that demands instant gratification--but if we all just continue to turn a blind eye to injustice--we’ll go nowhere faster than you ever thought possible.
In as far as voting goes, if you don’t vote for THE BEST CANDIDATE (regardless a party affiliation, or lackthereof) you are playing a part in aiding the continuance of a corrupt system and a corrupt government.
Oh, and I have no doubt that Nader will be on the ballot in Ohio, so don’t worry--I won’t have to write him in.
06 Jul 2008 at 09:33 pm | #
cinysuz, how are you putting pressure on Obama? Your uncritical blind support is making him worse. Obama’s moving to the right just as Kerry (the Neocon) did in 2004.
Obama is certainly serving the status quo. Republicans are giving Obama more money than McCain. He claimed 90% of his donations were small, but that simply isn’t true.
Obama supports NAFTA, illegal wire tapping, the Patriot Act, continued military and corporate occupation in Iraq, expanding the Pentagon budget, nuclear power, he’s status quo on Israel/Palestine and he supports for profit health care.
As Amy Goodman from Democracy Now says, ”It’s not the man, it’s the movement”. It’s good to see some of Obama’s supporters have a breaking point and have revolted on his own website because of his latest flip flop. Make no demands on the Corporate Democrats and you’ll get taken every time.
Instead of attacking Nader supporters and hoping to stifle his voice or our voices, you should work towards getting your candidate and party to take on his progressive platform. You have to admit that Nader’s platform is much more progressive than Obama’s.
Without the progressive third parties or Independent candidates of our past we wouldn’t have made nearly as much progress as we have in this country. If you want to vote for another status quo candidate (as you did in 2004) that is fine, but we have every right to vote for the best candidate in the race and that is Ralph Nader. It’s too bad Obama is too scared to debate Nader.
06 Jul 2008 at 09:34 pm | #
Dean - that’s why I’m dealing with what is. Americans are what they are. The percentage that actually cares about peace, the environment, taking care of those less fortunate, etc. is far smaller than even in the 60s when there was some power in numbers and people were willing to take to the streets. (Be the change--I know you haven’t been alive for 50 years but maybe somebody mentioned this time to you, dear.)
The state of this nation isn’t only due to corporate corruption and influence. It’s also a reflection of the character of Americans. And that’s pretty damned sorry. How did Americans react to other Americans that were faced with the disaster that was Katrina. Did they offer a safe bed, a good meal, a helping hand? No they held guns and made threats. That’s America. It’s sweet to continue to support Nader. But we have to work with what we’ve got. If 2 or 3 or 5% of Americans want what Nader has to offer, 95%+ don’t and never will. So that’s the starting point. Where do we go from there?
06 Jul 2008 at 09:41 pm | #
I didn’t attack anybody Justin. Had Ted Varney not brought up my name, I wouldn’t have commented.
06 Jul 2008 at 10:37 pm | #
cincysuz, not surprisingly I disagree with you with regards to the American people.
The American people have protested the war in large numbers. I remember going to DC and seeing at least 100,000 people and many estimated even more. Of course the corporate media that sold us the BS war pretended it was only in the low tens of thousands and focused on a BS story of a former soldier getting spat upon by us peacemongers.
The American people voted the Democrats into office in 2006 with the expectation that they would end the war. I’m not saying that the American people don’t have some inverted priorities and a lack of civic responsibility, but I do think that they largely feel powerless because our electoral system is so corrupt. They believe that the public is irrelevant when it comes to elections and Noam Chomsky says they are correct.
Many Americans did go down to help out with Katrina, it was the government that has still failed to deal with the problems. the corporate media has failed to continue to cover the plight of the victims. Real media reform would galvanize the American people to action. Instead the corporate propaganda disguised as news has worked to turn too many into mere spectators, but democracy is a participatory sport.
The issues Nader supports are majoritarian. A majority of Americans support ending the occupation. A majority of Americans and physicians support single payer health care. The only reason Nader’s numbers aren’t bigger is because he’s virtually shut out of the corporate media. That’s why the Republcrats must continue to try to shut him and other Independents out of the debates.
When you pretend that Nader and his supporters a working for the Republicans it is an attack. It’s simply not true and I think you know that.
06 Jul 2008 at 11:03 pm | #
out of over 300,000,000. that isnt a large number
07 Jul 2008 at 09:41 am | #
Have you even learned what countries have single payer health care yet? If you dont know and consider yourself informed how do you expect the rest of the people to know what it is and whether or not they truly want it?
07 Jul 2008 at 10:56 am | #
In response to Comment 16:
For those of you who need some help with understanding the necessity of universal healthcare— check out my favorite link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html and then just pick one of the models! They are all better than what we have now!!!!
Physicians for a National Health Program
FAQs:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized
Lessons from 3 countries with Single Payer Health Care:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/august/lessons_from_three_c.php
The Case for Universal Health Care:
Fact vs. Myth
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
Single Payer 101:
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/SinglePayer101.pdf
07 Jul 2008 at 11:09 am | #
move59, I provided you with the definition of single payer health care and some examples, like Canada and our own Medicare system. Would you care to dispute that single payer is better than the US pay or die system? All not for profit health care systems in the industrialized world work better than our corrupt and wasteful system.
07 Jul 2008 at 11:24 am | #
Justin, regarding your comments in #14,
There have been large protests, and you are correct that the Democrats voted into Congress have been woefully underperforming to the point of outright negligence.
However, i have to ask, is it possible for someone to believe that Obama is actually a better candidate than Nadar? Is it possible to support Obama without doing so merely because there are only two major parties? I’ll admit, i supported Kerry in 2004 because i thought he was better than Bush, but i did not like him at all.
This time it is different.
by the way, Justin, are you a paid member of the Ralph Nadar staff? i ran across that item somewhere and i thought, why didn’t i know that?
07 Jul 2008 at 02:44 pm | #
NtotheC, of course it is possible for someone to believe that Obama is actually a better candidate than Nader. If you like the Patriot Act or giving immunity to corporations that spy on Americans and you want to increase the Pentagon budget, it makes sense that you would prefer Obama to Nader. But for real progressives that want an end to the occupation, to reduce the Pentagon budget and give all Americans health care craddle to grave, I don’t think there’s a good argument that Obama is a better candidate on those issues and many others.
Obama has charisma and I’m glad that an African American is a major candidate, it’s just unfortunate that he’s a corporate candidate that is moving to the right instead of becoming more progressive. Kerry moved to the right as well and it made him worse, not better. That strategy hasn’t worked well for the Democrats at all. Kerry supporters should have put pressure on him to take better positions on the issues, he could’ve been a much better candidate.
Yes, I’m working on the Nader campaign. We’ve covered that here at the Beacon. It has been well known that I’ve been a Nader supporter for many years now, I’m not sure why you didn’t know that, but now you know.
07 Jul 2008 at 03:13 pm | #
Justin,
I’m well aware that you are a supporter of Mr. Nader. I just wasn’t aware that you were a compensated member of the staff. That changes the way that i view your opinion. That’s all.
There are several areas in which i disagree with Mr. Obama. Of course, there are many more in which i disgree with Mr. Nader. Whether you would like to portray someone that supports Mr. Obama as a hawk or not is not really my concern, but your demonizing of some of these compromised positions is unhelpful. I appreciate your idealism, it’s something most people temper as they get older.
I’m not sure why you mentioned that you think it’s great that a black guy is running. I don’t know where that falls into the conversation. I certainly don’t care about your opinion on the race of the candidates. It’s irrelevant.
07 Jul 2008 at 04:30 pm | #
NtotheC,
My position on Nader hasn’t changed over the years and as I said we’ve covered the fact that I’m working on the campaign here so it is no secret. I’m curious about what areas you disagree with Obama and Nader on. I think that our elections would be much more productive if it was more about a discussion of the issues and the direction our country should move in rather than just a horse race.
I think there are a lot of people that are against the war that are supporting Obama because they think Obama is against the war, including John Fox at City Beat. Obama isn’t against the continued occupation of Iraq and he wants to increase the Pentagon budget. That is a hawkish position.
In 2004 there were many people that believed that Kerry was against the war which simply wasn’t true. He was to the right of Bush on the war. If you vote for pro-war candidates you are supporting the war. I don’t vote based on the color of anyone’s skin, I was simply pointing out that I think that is about the only positive thing I can say about Obama’s campaign. His policy positions are going from bad to worse rather quickly.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want to discuss the issues because that is a typical response I hear from Democrats who loudly proclaim that Obama’s a better candidate yet refuse to back it up with real reasons why. It’s fine for people to disagree with me, I just think these are issues worth talking about.
Do you think Obama’s health care policy is better? Is Obama’s position on the Patriot Act better? Is Obama’s position on continuing the military and corporate occupation better than Nader’s? What exactly makes you think Obama is a better candidate? I would really like to know.
07 Jul 2008 at 07:40 pm | #
Justin says: Many Americans did go down to help out with Katrina, it was the government that has still failed to deal with the problems. the corporate media has failed to continue to cover the plight of the victims.
And I say, speaking to the character of Americans, all you have to do is look at recent disasters around the world and you’ll see citizens swarming to disaster sites, with picks and shovels, obligated to help their fellow man.
The people have heart. You’ve seen nothing of the sort in this country and you never will. This is a country that accepts children living in the streets, the elderly going cold and hungry and everything in between. It’s good that you believe in the “up from your bootstraps” American dream and the Norman Rockwell view of Americans. You’ve probably lived it. Albeit with a little help from the most despised corporate America. But America doesn’t want what Ralph Nader’s selling. They’ve had 30 years to digest his message and they’ve rejected it. Face it.
07 Jul 2008 at 10:09 pm | #
cincysuz, many Americans go to help out during disasters and I know many people that went down to help for Katrina. Again, it was our inept government that failed the victims.
I agree that we should be ashamed that we allow these things to go on, but it isn’t because the American people don’t care about people, it’s because of our corrupt government that spends half of all our expenditures on weapons of war instead of providing people with the basics, like health care.
The American people are fooled by a two party system where people feel powerless and that they have to vote for candidates that want to expand the bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget and continue the scandalous pay or die health care system.
You continue to put words in my mouth. I’ve never said that and anytime someone has said it to me I tell them to try it themselves and be sure to have someone take a picture for me. The fact is that we have the most adult and child poverty in the industrialized world. We don’t have the social mobility that other countries have or that our country had in the 50s and 60s.
The average American worker is working longer hours and making less money than 30 years ago. They are working longer hours and making less money than people in other industrialized nations. This is because of bipartisan policies like NAFTA which were introduced by (and are still supported by) the Democrats. There’s also bipartisan support for the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act and for profit health care.
America does like Nader’s policies, they just aren’t being told about them by the corporate media. As you know Nader was one of the most popular men in the nation for decades. He was ranked as the 100 most influential men of the past century. But now he (along with citizen groups) is shut out of Washington. Thomas Jefferson instructed us on how to deal with this and one of the ways is in the electoral arena. We need a Jeffersonian revolution.
It really began in the 80s when you had the new Raygun Democrats that decided it was good to forget labor and start dialing for the same corporate dollars as the Republicans. It continued with Clinton and now Obama gets more republican money than even McCain.
Nader’s policies are popular, but they are beyond the narrow parameter that the corporate rulers will allow on our publicly owned and corporate controlled airwaves.
(In 2000 Nader was the only candidate that was able to sell out Madison Square Gardens and have super rallies around the country, but this was ignored by the corporate media and he was shut out of the Presidential debates because the Corporate Dems and Republicans control them.)
When they do allow Nader a brief moment to speak it’s always framed as him “spoiling” our elections. Well the corporate parties have spoiled our country and it’s time for people to stop bitching about the American people and rationalizing our own apathy and to start fighting back for REAL change.
Small groups of people took on bigger problems against far greater odds. The people have the power, but only when they know they have the power and are willing to stand up and exercise it. Voting for corporate candidates and corporate policies is voting for the status quo. look in the mirror!
08 Jul 2008 at 08:23 am | #
Justin, the reason i don’t talk too much about policy is because of the fact that there isn’t a very good way to do so in such a forum. The fact that we look at issues in a different way is enough to make any rational discussion rather difficult. We just see things differently...but, why do i disagree with Nader?
1) i don’t think impeaching the President would be a very good idea. Does he deserve it? certainly. Unfortunately, i don’t think that the government should get deadlocked over this issue. And that’s what we’re talking about, absolutely nothing getting done.
2) energy, i like a lot of what Nader says, but i don’t think it’s time to take Nuclear power off the table.
3) military spending, i don’t like how much the military spends. I’d like to see more of Obama’s reasoning for his “bump up” comment. I don’t think that drastic cuts are going to do much either. But i don’t know, because neither candidate has actually talked about where and under what rationale the cuts would take place. I view the military as working strongly with the UN and for congressionally approved actions that are in our interest (and without a preemptive strategy)
4)Iraq, i don’t agree that we should immediately withdraw all forces. I have a sort of “you broke it, you bought it” mentality. I was against the war from the beginning. Protested in 2002 and 2003. I have nothing but disdain for this war and any minor “accomplishments” we may make there. However, i don’t think that an immediate withdrawl is something we can live with. I don’t agree with long term occupation. I want a timetable. I want to work with the UN and other countries to help.
5) Health Insurance, i like Nader’s position...i just don’t think that it will work here. I don’t really think Obama’s position will either, so there isn’t much there...of course, i don’t think that this is something that the President will have much of an effect on. After all, it’s the legislature’s job to do this sort of thing. I hope Clinton can push something similar to what she and John Edwards were pimping in the campaign. I liked their stuff more. We’ll have to see. Health care reform is increasingly important and it’s in integral part of our national defense (in the way that we need to be a healthy country for our economy and our economy is staggering under health care costs).
These are all areas in which Barack Obama is closer to my views than Ralph Nader.
08 Jul 2008 at 10:27 am | #
No actually you claimed that england had single payer system
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/the_nader_challenge/ (post 13) Because wikipedia told you so.
This of course ignores the fact that about 10% of citizens in england have private insurance and therefore england IS NOT a single payer system. There are multiple payers.
In addition Medicare is not single payer as you have the choice to go outside the system if you choose to. You can be your own payer. There are several physicians in town that do not accept medicare payments abut still see people that are on medicare for a cash pay basis. This scenario is not possible under single-payer.
There are very few single payer systems in the world Canada was one but it looks like not for long as more private clinics are starting at the rate of about 1 a week and the government has stopped trying to shut the private clinics down after losing a supreme court case a couple years ago.
Do some reading besides wiki and learn the issue.
08 Jul 2008 at 11:44 am | #
No actually I read PBS’s Frontline site that describes their system like this.
Here it describes the National Health Insurance model that is used in Canada, Tawain and South Korea. I spoke to someone who lived in Brazil and he told me they have single payer as well.
According to this article from Pysicians for a National Health Program there are single payer systems Scotland, Norway and Finland.
Medicare is a single payer system. You are wrong and really missed the point. The point is that not for profit health care is better than for profit health care and Nader’s plan is the only one that would cover all Americans. Obama’s plan keeps the greedy for profit insurance companies making a killing in a pay or die system. Every system in the industrialized world is better than ours.
08 Jul 2008 at 12:54 pm | #
NtotheC, I don’t see why this isn’t a good forum to discuss policy. I think it’s as good as any other. Unfortunately more people prefer to make silly comments rather than discuss the issues, but again, this is what elections should really be about. While I disagree with you on these things I do so respectfully and appreciate the fact that you are talking about real issues, it is rather refreshing.
1. Impeachment is in the constitution to prevent abuses of power in the executive branch. It’s not just about punishing criminal behavior, but it is to prevent dangerous precedents from being set. It’s important to keep some checks and balances and the American people support it. The Congress has a sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
2. A lot of people think that we need nuclear (or Nucular as W would say). Nuclear needs to be heavily subsidized or Wall Street won’t invest in it. The nuclear power industry is demanding 100 percent federal government loan guarantees because Wall Street won’t loan the money for new nuclear plants without those taxpayer guarantees.
It creates waste that just stays around for thousands of years and it becomes a security threat. Since Nuclear is dangerous and needs massive subsidization, shouldn’t we just invest in real sustainable energy instead?
A new clean energy paradigm means more jobs, more efficiency, greater security and energy independence, environmental protection and increased health for all people.
3. We aren’t too far off on this one. Nader says we need to reduce the Pentagon because it is wasteful, redundant and based on corporate greed instead of defense needs. A wasteful defense system is a weak one. The Government Accountability Office and Pentagon auditors have written many critical reports about this waste.
The proposed $600 billion military budget represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs - the items that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis.
4. Colin Powell compared Iraq to Pottery Barn, only Pottery Barn didn’t have a ‘you break it you buy it’ policy and neither does Iraq. The Iraqi people want and deserve their country back. The occupation has killed over a million Iraqi civilians, it is illegal and immoral.
Nader/Gonzalez proposes that a rapid negotiated withdrawal from Iraq, with UN sponsored elections, is the first step toward delivering peace to Middle East. A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set. They are calling for a full military and corporate withdrawal. We must internationalize the effort and bring in peace keepers form countries in the area that speak the language and understand the culture.
Obama will keep military forces and the private contractors like Blackwater there. He will expand the bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget and he’s reversed his position on Israel/Palestine and is moving to the right of McCain on the issue.
5. Health insurance should be not for profit. Edwards plan was much closer to Nader’s than to Clinton’s I think. I don’t understand why you think single payer health care wouldn’t work here when it works in other countries. The key is take the profit motive out of the system. Nader’s plan is clearly superior.
I agree that health care is a national security issue. 18,000 people die every year because they don’t have health care in this country, that’s six 9/11s every year. Only in America would a country with such great wealth allow this to go on. It’s a national disgrace.
See, it wasn’t that bad was it?