Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

The ‘antiwar’ Democratic party has found a novel way to oppose the war — by approving Bush’s funding request in full, with enough pork barrel expenses to line the pockets of its own war profiteers, such as Daddy Warbucks, Richard Blum (husband of Diane Feinstein). All four Democratic senators running for president voted for the appropriations bill. The mainstream media however has been characteristically charitable in supporting more warmongering by labelling the bill a ‘call for withdrawal’. The ‘withdrawal’ clause in the bill is a mere non-binding deadline for US troops to leave by April 2008. Bush is playing along gamely by threatening to veto the bill, which does not put any conditions on him in the first place, and is contributing to the perception that this was some sort of departure from existing policy. Quite understandably, the handful of antiwar Democrats voted against this sham.

Mike Gravel’s Old-fashioned Truth-telling 

Last night was the first televised debates between the Democratic presidential candidates and as expected, while they are responding to the overwhelming opposition to the Iraq war by offering a few platitudes, the leading candidates have a position very similat to Bush, and six out of the eight even use Bush’s words to describe their position on Iran — ‘all options must remain on the table’. Despite the fact that 57% of the American population favors an immediate troop withdrawal, only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are independent enough from the Israel lobby and the military-industrial complex to prorpose a coherent plan. Both showed up the hypocrisy of the rest time and again, yet what is most interesting is how the mainstream media covered this event. Britain’s own New Labour shitrag, the Guardian declares Hillary Clinton the winner, because

She appeared to be the most comfortable of the eight runners in the 90-minute televised debate from the South Carolina university campus as she dealt with a series of questions ranging from how she would handle another terrorist attack on the US to her vote in 2002 backing the invasion of Iraq.

Of course, it is all about how one ‘appeared’. The substance of the policy, and its proximity to the constituents’ demands is irrelevant.

Mr Obama, who has been gaining in most of the polls and has matched Mrs Clinton in fundraising, showed little of the dynamic rhetoric on which he has built his reputation. 

‘Dynamic rhetoric’, yes — precisely what one looks for when deciding the future of one’s country. Who cares for ideas? But it gets better.

He regained a little ground towards the end in a series of spirited exchanges with Denis Kucinich, who is fervently anti-war, over Mr Obama’s refusal to rule out military action against Iran.

Notice the word ‘fervently’ — somehow makes it sound less rational, doesn’t it? But he says this was one of Obama’s finer moments. His retort must have been sharp, intelligent and devastating.

“You’re setting the stage for another war,” Mr Kucinich said.

Mr Obama responded: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.”

And that was the highlight of the debate! “That was one of the genuine exchanges”, confirms the Guardian hack. You get the picture.

Turning to US media, let us hear Washington Post‘s impressions of the debate. Recall that out of the eight candidates, only two have policies in line with the wishes of the majority of the US population.

At least six of the eight declared candidates … showed themselves to be both substantive and direct in their responses. The other two, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) and former senator Mike Gravel (Alaska), provided a counterpoint of left-wing ideas that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from Biden and Obama.

So what is this ‘seriousness’ so lacking in Kucinich and Gravel?

The challenges from the liberal flank allowed almost all the others to assert that, despite their criticisms of President Bush‘s Iraq policy, they are ready to use military force to retaliate against future terrorist attacks.

Senator Barack ”Slither” Obama Challenged