Mitt Romney has named a foreign-policy team that is a who’s who of George W. Bush’s war council and outside cheerleaders, including Cofer Black, Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, Michael Hayden, Robert Kagan, and Daniel Senor. ---- and you can bet that Perle, Feith, Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Lehman, and the rest of the neocons will push him into Iran.
some don't forget On Jul 16, 3:37 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "Apparently in today’s political world, being an isolationist means opposing > the U.S. government’s policing the rest of the world through invasion, > occupation, and war -- that is, militarism. The word “isolationist” has > always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt those who apply the word > to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left with the daffy > conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist > precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than > invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries."Opposing Imperialism > Isn’t IsolationismbySheldon Richman, Posted July 16, 2012 > When pundits and rival politicians call Ron Paul an “isolationist,” they > mislead the American people -- and they know it. > They know it? How could they not? Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional > free trade. He believes any American should be perfectly free to buy from or > sell to any person in the world. In that sense the laissez-faire sense he > favors globalization, which, applied consistently, would require a worldwide > free market. He’s such a strong advocate of free trade that he objects when > the world’s governments, led by the U.S. government, set up international > bureaucracies, such as the World Trade Organization, to manage trade. He > thinks trade should be a totally private matter. That’s a solid > classical-liberal, or libertarian, position. > So why is Paul repeatedly called an isolationist? > Apparently in today’s political world, being an isolationist means opposing > the U.S. government’s policing the rest of the world through invasion, > occupation, and war -- that is, militarism. The word “isolationist” has > always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt those who apply the word > to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left with the daffy > conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist > precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than > invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries. > If that’s what it means to be an isolationist, count me as one too. > It’s easy to understand why this inappropriate label is stuck on Paul. > Establishment conservatives and progressives are terrified by him and > desperately want him to go away. They’re terrified because he has done the > worst thing imaginable: he has held up a mirror and reminded them of what > they are. > He has shown establishment conservatives and even so-called Republican > moderates (such as Mitt Romney and former candidate Jon Huntsman) that they > are, and long have been, apologists for empire and therefore betrayers of the > republican (small “r”) ideals they say they embrace. > When Paul condemns past, present, and future aggressive wars (such as the one > being planned for Iran); when he calls for closing America’s 900 military > installations in more than 40 countries and removing America’s troops from > 130 countries; when he advocates an end to all economic and military aid to > foreign governments (including Israel’s); when he condemns autocratic > executive power; and when he opposes wholesale violation of the Bill of > Rights (see the USA PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act), > he is saying to his Republican rivals,You have helped destroy individual > liberty by shamefully supporting the U.S. global empire, which brutalizes > foreign populations, fosters an exploitative military-industrial complex, > violates civil liberties, and burdens the American people with obscene debt, > taxation, and Federal Reserve monetary manipulation. > That charge must be hard to take from a fellow Republican. All of his rivals > are committed to the empire and the domestic national-security state. Each > has attempted to one-up the others by promising to be tough on Iran, which is > already subject to economic sanctions -- an act of war under international > law -- and covert warfare by the CIA and Israeli intelligence, working with > Iranian terrorists. Huntsman, who left the race before the South Carolina > primary, was inexplicably portrayed as less hawkish than the other > Republicans, yet he actually went further than the others in saying he would > invade Iran with ground forces if he became president. “I can’t live with the > implications of not doing it.... [You] got to have all options on the table. > You got to be prepared to use all elements of national power,” he told CNN’s > Erin Burnett when she specifically asked about the option of “troops, > invasion.” Huntsman had talked about reducing the number of troops in > Afghanistan, but that must not be mistaken for a noninterventionist foreign > policy. It was merely an attempt to attract votes from the war-weary. > Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are similarly hawkish toward Iran and > generally. The debates were little more than exercises in out-machoing one > another. > Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has named a foreign-policy team that is a who’s who of > George W. Bush’s war council and outside cheerleaders, including Cofer Black, > Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, Michael Hayden, Robert Kagan, and Daniel > Senor. There’s no doubt that a President Romney would carry on the > neoconservative program of global hegemony -- despite the increasing evidence > that the U.S. government cannot control events overseas. > In light of their unstinting militarism, Ron Paul’s rivals strike back at him > in the way they know best: they smear him. The thought of a staunch anti-war, > pro–Bill of Rights candidate running against Barack Obama scares the > daylights out of them, because they know only one way to run against a > Democrat: accuse him of being an appeaser and a socialist. > That is absurd, however, because Obama is neither. He has steadfastly carried > on the empire’s program of global militarism, executive autocracy, and > corporatism. If you doubt it, look at his foreign-policy record and the long > list of Wall Street people who advise him and give him money. And remember > that he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton support economic sanctions on > Iran and refuse to forswear a military attack.Progressives’ betrayalWhich > brings us to the progressives. If you think establishment conservatives are > scared of Ron Paul, imagine how Obama and his supporters must feel. Can you > imagine their having to run against a staunch anti-war, pro–Bill of Rights > Republican? This is the same Obama who has maintained Guantanamo, launched > more deadly drone attacks than George W. Bush, signed into law the authority > to detain persons indefinitely without charge or trial, claimed he may kill > even American citizens without due process -- and has done so -- gone to war > against Libya unilaterally while insisting it wasn’t a war, cracked down > harshly on whistle-blowers, protected torturers from legal consequences, > invoked state secrets to quash lawsuits by torture victims, and on and on. > It is almost amusing to watch progressives looking for an excuse not to say > positive things about Paul, despite his being the only candidate to condemn > the empire. Some have pointed to his pro–free-market positions (though few -- > notably Ralph Nader -- have noticed his anti-corporatism), while others find > refuge in ugly 20-year-old ghost-written material he has renounced. They just > cannot stand that a nonprogressive -- a libertarian, for heaven’s sake -- is > the anti-war, pro–civil liberties candidate. While some progressives, such > asNationeditor Katrina vanden Heuvel, can look past her domestic-policy > disagreements and say, “good he’s in,” others can’t. For example, Kevin Drum > ofMother Jones,wrote,Ron Paul is not a charming oddball with a few peculiar > notions. He’s not merely “out of the mainstream.” Ron Paul is a full-bore > crank....Now, balanced against [his domestic policy] you have the fact that > Paul opposes the War on Drugs and supports a non-interventionist foreign > policy. But guess what? Even there, he’s a crank. Even if you’re a hard-core > non-interventionist yourself, you probably think World War II was a war worth > fighting. But not Ron Paul. He thinks we should have just minded our own damn > business. And even if you’re a hardcore opponent of our current drug policy > if you think not just that marijuana should be legalized, not just that hard > drugs should be decriminalized, but that all illicit drugs should be fully > legalized -- I’ll bet you still think that maybe we should retain some > regulations on a few of the worst drugs. They’re pretty dangerous, after all, > and no matter how much you hate the War on Drugs you might have a few qualms > about a global marketing behemoth like RJ Reynolds having free rein to > advertise and sell anything it wants, anywhere it wants, in any way it wants. > But not Ron Paul. As near as I can tell, he just wants everything legalized, > full stop.Bottom line: Ron Paul is not merely a “flawed messenger” for these > views. He’s an absolutely toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger for these > views....Drum sounds like a man who is beside himself because the peacenik in > the race favors individual liberty and free markets rather than state > socialism. So does “DougJ” writing at Balloon Juice: “For a liberal like me, > who is primarily interested in the well-being of the American middle-class > and in providing opportunity for everyone in the United States, regardless of > race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc., I just don’t see > why I should be ‘challenged’ by Ron Paul.” > As noted, not all progressives take this anti-Paul position. One progressive > has said that even if Paul were promising to end Social Security overnight, > he would be worth supporting for his anti-war, pro–civil liberties platform. > In other words, issues must be prioritized. Stopping militarism -- especially > the coming war with Iran -- and the destruction of the Bill of Rights > outranks everything else. > Progressive blogger Glenn Greenwald sees this more clearly than most of his > colleagues. He writes,If you don’t really care about these issues -- war, > empire, the denial of due process, suffocating secrecy, ongoing killing of > foreign civilians, oligarchical manipulation of the Fed and other government > policies, militarized foreign policy and police practices, etc. -- then it’s > easy to blithely dismiss the need to find some way to challenge the > bipartisan consensus on those issues. For those for whom these issues aren’t > priorities, I think you’ll hear the type of dismissive response as Drum > voices: go find someone else with a comparable platform who can amplify these > views (not that there’s anyone else I can think of).And that, to me, is the > vital point: despite vocally feigning grave concern about these issues during > the Bush years, they are not a priority for many progressives precisely > because they no longer provide any means of obtaining partisan advantage. How > can you pretend to vehemently oppose the slaughter of foreign civilians, the > deprivation of due process, a posture of Endless War, radical secrecy, etc., > when the President behind whom you’re faithfully marching is an aggressive > advocate and implementer of those very policies? > Most progressives live in a fantasy world where they imagine themselves to be > champions of peace, tolerance, and the rule of law, when in fact they support > -- and refuse to criticize -- a man, Barack Obama, who has mimicked George W. > Bush in virtually every way. How can they tolerate the man -- Ron Paul -- who > reminds them of that?http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1204b.asp -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
