James Petras ironically frames his misleading essay as an exercise in speaking truth to power. It is ironic that he frames his 12 misrepresentations of Obama's foreign policy in that manner when Obama is not even in power yet in the first place and it is George Bush who has been President for the last eight years. But from reading this piece, if one had gone into hibernation, they would have thought that Barack Obama was the President of the United States from 2001 to 2008.
When one speaks truth to power, one must be able to get the basic facts right about where one's opponent stands on the issues. For instance, it would do no good to speak truth to power by calling Bush a Nazi. But that is exactly what Petras does. If one is going to criticize Obama, or any other politician for that matter, one has to be able to understand where they are coming from before running their mouths off.
Misrepresentation #1 -- Obama promises to escalate Afghanistan: While it is true that Obama would send two more brigades to Afghanistan, this misleading assessment does not tell the whole story about Obama's policies in that region. Obama, unlike McCain and Bush, understands that the solution to Afghanistan's problems is not military, but political. In that regard, he would increase non-military aid to the region by $1 billion, especially geared towards creating an economy that is not based on opium. This kills two birds with one stone -- since Afghanistan is the Opium capital of the world, it would alleviate the drug problem in this country. The second is that it would facilitate a political solution in that country and undermine Al-Qaeda's power there.
Misrepresentation #2 -- Obama would escalate ground and air attacks against Pakistan: False. From the same speech:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
The only time Obama would act in that regard would be if he had actionable intelligence against terrorist targets. Now, one can question the merits of Obama's plan by raising questions about the likelihood of error. In other words, if I lived there and I wanted to take out some tribal rival, who better to do the job for me than the US military? Or, what if I wanted a nice cool million worth of reward money? But for Petras to claim that this would constitute a systemic attack on civilians is totally misleading; that implies that Obama would try to create a Vietnam-style conflict in Pakistan.
Misrepresentation #3 -- Obama opposes a withdrawal deadline for Iraq. False. Obama would withdraw all our combat troops out in 16 months. The only forces remaining would be advisers to train the Iraqi Army, special operations forces to capture terrorists, and a force to protect our embassy there. And it is simply not true that Obama would pursue conflicts with Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah.
Misrepresentation #4 -- Obama blindly supports the policies of Israel. While it is true that Obama has always been a strong supporter of Israel, it is also true that Obama would support a two-state solution to the Palestine conflict with a contiguous Palestinian state, as outlined in his speech to AIPAC. He would restore the Clintonian policy of active engagement with both sides until a solution is reached.
Misrepresentation #5 -- Obama would attack Iran. False. Obama, as he has clearly stated, would negotiate with Iran without preconditions. Petras engages in the old guilt by association canard by highlighting the work of Obama advisor Dennis Ross with the Bipartisan Policy Center, which advocates a more hawkish approach with Iran. But just because Mr. Ross works for a group which would pursue a more hawkish approach to Iran does not mean that Obama would support such an approach. While the Bipartisan Policy Center does not hold out much hope that a diplomatic approach with Iran would succeed, the fact of the matter is that diplomacy has not even been tried. And that is one of the main reasons why Barack Obama opposed Kyl/Lieberman, which Obama felt went too far in saber-rattling.
We have to remember our basic history lessons here -- we have to remember that during the height of the Cold War, we always spoke with the Russians without preconditions, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The fact that we were able to speak with the Russians without preconditions means that we are still here today. Even if Iran is the serious threat that the Bipartisan Policy Center says it is, Obama understands that we still have to be able to speak with them without preconditions. So for Petras to lump Obama's policies in with the Bipartisan Policy Center is false and misleading and reminiscent of the Republican guilt by association tactics.
Misrepresentation #6 -- Obama supports the settlements. False. Obama opposes the settlements as stated in this interview with the Jerusalem Post; however, he says that many of these issues have to be resolved between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities.
I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously.
Israel's security concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement construction doesn't necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security.
Ultimately, though, these are part of the discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think that, based on what's previously been said, for Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process.
Misrepresentation #7 -- Obama blindly supported the $700 billion bailout. False. As reported in the New York Times, Obama did not support the package until oversight was created in order to prevent abuse. Now, one may argue on whether the oversight provisions contained in the bill were enough, but to say that he blindly supported the package is false and misleading.
And it is simply not true, as Petras claims, that Obama would create no relief for the Middle Class. As Obama said in the above article, he will press ahead with his domestic programs for the middle class and pointed out that one of the main causes of the current financial crisis is the fact that wages for the middle class have been stagnant under the Bush administration. And Obama has a comprehensive plan to help the middle class, including a windfall profits tax that he would return to families burdened by high gas prices, middle class tax cuts that are three times as much as John McCain's proposals, the creation of a green economy to create jobs and drive up wages, a $50 billion jumpstart package to prevent 1 million Americans from losing their jobs and shoring up our infrastructure, the elimination of income taxes for seniors making $50,000 or less, and ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and giving tax breaks to companies that keep jobs here.
Misrepresentation #8 -- Obama blindly supports free-market capitalism. This is a bizarre criticism:
Obama’s economic team has openly declared their embrace and practice of ‘free market’ ideology and opposition to any effort to engage in large-scale injections of government funds in publicly-owned productive activity and social services in the face of wide-spread private sector failure, corruption and collapse.
So, first Petras opposes the $700 billion bailout on the grounds that it is a welfare package for the rich; then, he turns around and criticizes Obama for not supporting any kind of bailout for what he calls "publicly-owned productive activity and social services." But first of all, we have no idea what Petras is talking about when he refers to "publicly-owned productive activity and social services." Secondly of all, if we had done nothing, would Petras have turned around and accused Obama of not doing enough to bail out the banking industry? After all, that would have been in line with the criticisms of Herbert Hoover -- that he did not do enough to head off the Great Depression.
Misrepresentation #9 -- Obama supports private health care. False.
Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
In other words, if the private health insurers deem you uninsurable, you would be able to get the same health insurance that members of Congress currently enjoy.
Misrepresentation #10 -- Obama supports ethanol. True, but that does not tell the whole story about Obama's energy plan. And it is not clear at all, as Petras claims, that ethanol raises food prices; in fact, grain prices have taken a sharp tumble over the last few months. And we see a bizarre assumption on Petras' part -- he rants against capitalism and free markets, yet he makes a free market argument against ethanol -- the claim that it would raise food prices because it would increase demand -- when it conveniently supports his case. So, which is it, Mr. Petras? Are you only against free market arguments when they don't conveniently support your case? Or are you against free markets altogether?
And in fact, Obama's energy plan is about a lot more than merely supporting ethanol. Among other things, it would create short-term relief for families at the pump through a windfall profits tax, the creation of five million new jobs through record investment in alternative energy, put 1 million hybrid cars (150 mpg) on the road by 2015, ensure 25% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2025, and create a cap and trade program that would reduce carbon emissions by 2050. Petras likes to style himself as an "intellectual," yet I fail to see how it is intellectual on his part to conveniently ignore those parts of Obama's plans which do not fit his preconceived notions of where he stands on the issues or to use free market logic when it supports his case while claiming to be against free markets.
Misrepresentation #11 -- Obama supports continued hostility to Venezuela and Cuba. False. First of all, Obama stated in one of his primary debates that he supports diplomacy without preconditions with Cuba and Venezuela; he has always maintained this stance. Next, Obama supports easing the embargo against Cuba, as noted in this MSNBC news report. Next, regarding Venezuela, Obama stated that Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela do not pose a threat to this country. This is something that has all the wingnuts and crackpot Republican conspiracy theorists howling in dismay -- how could Obama not see that these scary brown people are all in league against us???
Misrepresentation #12 -- Obama does not have a comprehensive plan to get us out of this mess. Does Obama not have a plan? Or does Petras not want to understand the Obama plan because his mind is already made up that he is voting for another candidate? We hear this sort of duplicity all the time, especially from Republicans -- they say they don't know what a Democratic candidate stands for, when they simply don't want to know in the first place. And it is telling how Petras ties it all up in a Republican-style elitist smear that merely gives ammunition to the very Republican slime machine that he says he's against.
We all agree that all voices deserve to be heard. I actually agree with Petras that Nader and McKinney and Barr and Baldwin deserve to be heard at the Presidential debates along with the two major party candidates. The rule of thumb should be that if they are organized enough that they get on the ballot in states totaling 270 electoral votes or more, then they should be allowed into the debates. But for Petras to close with the ad homenim attack that Obama is controlled by some secret cabal of elitist Zionists (while conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama was proposing relief for the home mortgage crisis long before it got into the news) is totally pointless. I can sit on this keyboard and reject any argument I like on the same grounds that Petras does. Thus his argument is pointless and without merit.
And therein lies a problem with a lot of third-party logic. There are no easy answers to our country's problems. For McKinney or Nader or Barr or Baldwin or any other 3rd party candidate to claim otherwise suggests that they are as unqualified to serve as our next President as Bush was. George Bush, remember, believed in easy answers and never took the time to grasp the complexities of the issues that he was facing. And look what kind of a mess that we have to clean up.