War v. Peace, Status Quo v. Real Change and Obfuscation v. Transparency

Dear Friends,

The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.

War v. Peace

On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus.  Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people.  Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli  response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel.  Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted.  You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides.  Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.

With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria.  She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya.  President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed.  Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya.  She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.

We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.

Status Quo v. Real Change

On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now.  This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.  When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband.  There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat."  I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was.  Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force.  President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business.  Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance.  Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.

Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all.  She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true.  He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place.  She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism.  She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.  She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big.  She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher.  However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years.  She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior.  The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.

She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her.  Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to.  She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street.  Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates.  Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street.  The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.

The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change.  With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought.  The time for incremental action has passed.  We need big change now.  Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy.  Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax.  She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps.  That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.

Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions.  While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.

She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record.  She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd.  While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize.  Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate.  That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.

She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks.  I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview.  But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders".  Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately.  The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks.  That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority.  When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.

We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.

I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump.  In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more.  The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll.  Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls.  With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.

Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Syria, Russia and other Bullies

Dear Friends,

In a post on September 11, 2015 (here), I argued in favor of a no-fly zone to protect the Syrian people from their own government.

A no-fly zone will stop the Syrian government from using barrel bombs to kill civilians, it should enable the establishment of safe zones where aid agencies can provide water, food and shelter. I realize that Russia will probably continue to oppose any such actions, but we cannot sit by and continue to watch the genocide in Syria and force people to flee their homeland in violent and perilous conditions. The world needs to stand up to bullies whether Bashar al-Assad, Putin, ISIL or any others. 

The issue of a no-fly zone or zones in Syria has been talked about again in the last couple of days.  Secretary Clinton broke with the Obama Administration and called for a no-fly zone for humanitarian reasons.  Senator Sanders continues to oppose a no-fly zone as leading to more involvement in a conflict that we are ill-equipped to take on.  Also since my post on September 11th, the Russians have started flying missions in support of the Assad government against ISIS and rebel targets.  Apparently Russia has created its own no-fly zone and told American planes to stay out.

My statement "that Russia will probably continue to oppose any such actions" was certainly an understatement.  According to a Financial Times article this afternoon (here),

Just weeks ago, after months of diplomacy, officials were close to an agreement on enforcing aerial safe-zones to end the Assad regime’s bombing of civilians in northern and southern Syria, according to diplomats and military officials in the US-led coalition. The agreement was based on Jordanian and Turkish plans presented earlier this year.

Many officials believe an imminent move to ramp up coalition activity in Syria precipitated the Kremlin’s sudden intervention late last month.

Apparently Putin is using his activities in Syria to be in charge of what happens to the Assad government.

If we attempt to impose a no-fly zone now, we will be in direct conflict with the Russians and would greatly escalate the already large risk of a major confrontation.  President Obama said that running for President is different from being President about Hillary Clinton's call for a no-fly zone.  He could have added that writing blogs is a lot easier than actually having to make decisions in very complicated circumstances.  It looks to me that the coalition tried to find a way to use no-fly zones to provide humanitarian aid, but Putin has now blocked that avenue.  I am glad that President Obama tried.  I do not have the answer.  If Secretary Clinton or any of the Republican candidates that are calling for no-fly zones in Syria have a plan, they should lay out the entire plan in detail because the issues are far more complex than can be dealt with in sound bites.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Refugees

Dear Friends,

The news is full of reports about the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria.  The calls for action are increasing every day.  Yet the responses are ludicrously inadequate.  Yesterday, President Obama announced that the United States would take 10,000 refugees next year, and he said it like it would make a difference.  It will, of course, make a difference for those 10,000 people, but it will do nothing to solve the humanitarian crisis the world is facing.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (here)

Wars, conflict and persecution have forced more people than at any other time since records began to flee their homes and seek refuge and safety elsewhere, according to a new report from the UN refugee agency.
UNHCR's annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released on Thursday (June 18), said that worldwide displacement was at the highest level ever recorded. It said the number of people forcibly displaced at the end of 2014 had risen to a staggering 59.5 million compared to 51.2 million a year earlier and 37.5 million a decade ago.

Recent reports say that the number is now over 60 million people.  Obviously resettlement is not a solution to this problem.  In the long term, ending war, violence, oppression and poverty is the only solution.  We need to let people live in peace and hope.

The current focus is on refugees from Syria who are fleeing in huge numbers.  The people of Syria are being killed, maimed and terrorized by their own government as well those opposed to the current government as well as ISIS, etc.  The United States response to this genocide has been pathetic.  I do not expect us to send ground troops, but we have the ability to enforce a no-fly zone but have refused to do so.

A recent article in The International Business Times (here) has a good analysis of the issues surrounding a no-fly zone.  The Telegraph published an op-ed piece by a representative of the Syria National Coalition (here) that argues convincingly for a no-fly zone.

A no-fly zone will stop the Syrian government from using barrel bombs to kill civilians, it should enable the establishment of safe zones where aid agencies can provide water, food and shelter.  I realize that Russia will probably continue to oppose any such actions, but we cannot sit by and continue to watch the genocide in Syria and force people to flee their homeland in violent and perilous conditions.  The world needs to stand up to bullies whether Bashar al-Assad, Putin, ISIL or any others.

President Obama needs to act.  We may not be successful, but we can no longer sit by and watch.  We need to give all the people displaced by war and violence around the world hope that the rest of world is not turning their backs on them.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Say No to a Military Strike in Syria

President Obama’s rationale for the need for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria poses a false choice, lacks logic, contains ludicrous guarantees and has no legal basis.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am willing to concede that the Assad regime used chemical weapons that resulted in over 1,000 deaths of innocent civilians, including children.  The rationale and arguments that President Obama, Secretary Kerry and their supporters are using are destroying their credibility and limiting the options available to the global community to deal with this monumental humanitarian crisis.

President Obama is posing a false choice.  He states that the choice is to do nothing or to use military force to hold Assad accountable for using chemical weapons and to deter him and others from using them in the future.  Many of the members of Congress who have voiced opposition to the President’s call for a military strike have made it clear that they believe something must be done but believe that there are non-military options available.  Every day members of Congress and others are offering non-military actions that could be taken, but the Obama Administration continues to claim that the choice is do nothing or military intervention.  President Obama and Secretary Kerry are both very smart people who are being intellectually dishonest by continuing to pose this false choice and are severely damaging their credibility.

President Obama is known as a thoughtful, disciplined and logical person, but in this case his argument for military intervention in Syria demonstrates flawed logic.  President Obama has said that the timing for a military strike is not critical so we can wait for Congress to have a debate and approve the action.  Using that logic, it would also be clear that we have time to wait for the report of the UN weapons inspectors.  If President Obama is so certain that chemical weapons were used and that the Assad regime is responsible, why not wait for the UN report which at the very least would support the fact that chemical weapons were used?  The UN report might also provide other nations with cover to support action against Assad.

President Obama indicates that the military strike will degrade Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future, will make it clear that there will be severe consequences for using chemical weapons in the future and will also deter other nations from developing and using chemical weapons, but the strike will be very limited and will not be sufficient to impact the balance of power in the ongoing civil war in Syria.  If the military attack is so limited as to have no impact on the balance of power in the civil war, it will be a small slap on the wrist and hence not have any significant impact on Mr. Assad’s future use of chemical weapons or deter others.  If the military attack is significant enough to scare Mr. Assad and others into not using chemical weapons, then it will certainly tip the balance of power in the civil war.  If Mr. Assad sees himself losing the civil war, that existential threat to his regime and to him personally will certainly not force him to discontinue the use of chemical weapons and could force him to use even more brutal tactics to win the war quickly.

The Obama Administration refuses to answer the question of what will happen if we go forward with the military strike and then Mr. Assad uses chemical weapons again.  It is impossible to make a logical case for a military strike if you are unwilling or unable to answer the question of what do you do if it does not have the intended results.  When this question was put to Secretary Kerry, he refused to answer and reverted to canned talking points about a limited strike that would deter the future use of chemical weapons. 

The lack of logic is also evident in the ludicrous guarantees that Secretary Kerry makes.  He has said that he can “guarantee” that there will be no direct military involvement by the United States in the Syrian civil war and that there will be no US boots on the ground.  By constantly using the word “direct”, Mr. Kerry is clearly indicating that the United States will be indirectly involved.  Presumably our current involvement of providing support to the opposition forces is “indirect”.  It is unknowable what the response to a military strike in Syria will be from Mr. Assad and his allies or where that response will lead.  Such a “guarantee” is at best disingenuous and is certainly misleading.

Secretary Kerry has also indicated that he believes that we can guarantee that Syrian chemical weapons will not get into the hands of other bad guys.  One of the real dangers of a collapse of the Assad regime is that the chemical weapon stores will be unprotected, and there can be no assurances that they will not fall into the hands of other bad guys.  Neither can there be any assurance that Mr. Assad will not give chemical weapons to any group that he feels will help him stay in power.  To say that the United States knows with any certainty what will happen after we bomb Syria, is either the height of arrogance or an outright lie.

Secretary Kerry also claims that he can guarantee that the United States is only supporting the moderate opposition forces and not the extremists and that an attack on the Assad regime will strengthen the moderate opposition forces.  There may have been a time in this war that one could differentiate between the good and bad opposition forces, but that time has long since past.  All segments of the opposition forces are intermingled and have committed atrocities.  To say that the United States can vet the opposition forces to know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and keep our aid in the hands of the good guys only is once again either the height of arrogance or an outright lie.

Secretary Kerry’s claim that the United States is supported in this action by many other nations is a ridiculous claim that further destroys his credibility.  He sounds like President George W. Bush talking about his coalition of the willing.  Canada is not supporting this approach. Great Britain is not supporting this approach. Italy is not supporting this approach.  Germany is silent as is much of the rest of Europe. NATO is not supporting this approach.  Secretary Kerry cites France and Poland.  The Arab League says that something should be done but has not come out in support of any military action.  The United States would be once again essentially acting on its own.

Secretary Kerry has also argued that after the air strikes when Assad will no longer use chemical weapons, the parties will reach a standstill with moderate opposition forces negotiating for a transitional government that will lead to a free and open democracy in Syria.  Secretary Kerry is too smart and understands history (to say nothing of the events of the last few years) to well to actually believe in that scenario.  While the picture he is painting would be wonderful, it has no chance of actually coming true in any time other than perhaps in decades.  When the Obama Administration and its supporters use the same fantasy views of the future world that the Bush Administration did in connection with its nation building, they are destroying their own credibility and making it clear that their proposed course of action cannot be supported by facts and realistic projections.

There is no legal basis for a United States airstrike against Syria.   News reports have quoted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as indicating that such a strike would only be authorized under the UN Charter if the United States were acting in self-defense or such an attack were authorized by the Security Council.  Of course neither of those conditions has been satisfied.  President Obama obviously knows this fact as he relies not on the legality but the morality of a response and the fact that the United States and others have acted illegally in the past.

The moral outrage at what is going on in Syria should be increased because of the use of chemical weapons, but it should be on top of the moral outrage that we should be expressing at all of the killing and atrocities.  The fighting in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and has displaced millions.  Under President Obama’s rationale, his airstrike will do nothing to prevent or mitigate further killing and atrocities as long as they are not committed with chemical weapons. 

President Obama’s course of action is based on the assumption that there is something that the United States can do to solve the problem.  As Jon Stewart has said, we are a superpower with no super powers.  I admit that all the suggested actions that have been proposed as alternatives to a military airstrike have flaws, just as there are many flaws in the idea of a military airstrike.  The United States should be open to diplomatic and political solutions as alternatives to military intervention.  Arms embargoes, no-fly zones, international criminal court action, naval blockades, pressure on and through Russia, sanctions and other ideas that have been suggested are all flawed, but they are better choices than a military airstrike.

Supporters of the Obama airstrikes are also claiming that if the United States does not intervene militarily, we will be seen as weak and it will encourage Assad and others to use chemical weapons.  The United States and the rest of the world can and should demonstrate strength in non-military ways.  Some supporters of the Obama airstrikes also make the argument that if the Democrats in Congress do not support his plan, then the President will be a lame duck for the rest of his term and not be able to get anything done.  I am appalled that anyone would be willing to bomb another nation and kill innocent civilians so that President Obama might be able to get some of his domestic agenda through Congress.

The arguments that President Obama, Secretary Kerry and others who support Obama’s airstrikes are, in my view, hurting the their own credibility, damaging the standing of the United States in the world and limiting the global community’s options in dealing with a monumental humanitarian crisis. 

Please write President Obama, write your Representative and write your Senators so that we can stop the United States from making a terrible mistake.