I extend my sincere sympathy to the families and friends of those who have fallen, and I express my sincere desire to prevent more from falling. Instead of Hillary's babble and broken promises, we need to hear, "This war was wrong – and illegal – from the beginning. The situation has only become worse since the U.S. bombing, invasion, and occupation. The U.S. must get out of Iraq. Bring all American combat forces, military and private, home now. And don't abandon them once they're here."
Iraq is a member of the Arab League. The other member states of the Arab League, with the assistance of the United Nations, should be involved in structuring a genuinely representative Iraqi government, without U.S. influence. This government should likewise control Iraq's economy and resources. Void all agreements to the contrary – and investigate all no-bid contracts. There should be no permanent U.S. bases. If any acts committed by the U.S. against Iraq constitute war crimes, prosecute those acts.
Hillary and other Democratic candidates claim to be for peace, but only in Iraq. Everywhere else is up for grabs. Literally. She says an Iran with nuclear weapons is "unacceptable," yet she voted to allow U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then again, Hillary and five other of the candidates (all but Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Ohio) have declared as acceptable the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the so-called war on terror.
If my prediction (at the end of this article) is incorrect and Hillary becomes president, I believe that at some point in that four-year stretch she will begin to take steps to pull the U.S. out of Iraq. She has said, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." In other words, innocent Americans and Iraqis can continue to die until her Administration can take credit for ending the war.
It bears repeating that Hillary has never voted against this war. If she were truly opposed to the war rather than playing politics, she might demonstrate this easily not only by refusing another dollar for war, but by herself introducing meaningful legislation to end the war. She has not done this. Instead she has, again and again, given Bush more money to continue the war, continue the slaughter. This brutal takeover without regard for the rights of the people goes beyond Iraq, beyond the Middle East. Knowingly or not, Hillary and every other member of Congress who support the war are participating in the erosion and complete loss of human and civil rights, in this country and around the world.
Domestically, Hillary supports three strikes laws, "faith-based initiatives" to address police brutality, and fewer restrictions on wiretapping cell phones. She is opposed to solar-powered electric vehicles and so opposed to civil rights that the Democratic Party-friendly ACLU rated her as having a "mixed" civil rights voting record at the end of 2002. As recently as 2006 she voted to renew the PATRIOT Acts.
Hillary opposes universal, comprehensive health care, instead preferring what she calls "a uniquely American solution:" low-cost health insurance. This is not health care; rather it enshrines insurance companies as "the deciders" of people's health, not the people themselves (and their chosen health-care providers). Mandatory health insurance, espoused by many of these candidates, is in place in some states and proposed for many more. If you go to the emergency room and can't prove you have health insurance, will you be arrested instead of treated?
Mandatory health insurance is the latest distraction from the long-urgent necessity of genuine health care with a focus on optimum health, not optimum profits. Under a mandatory system, the Federal Government will force employed Americans to pay insurance companies to deny their legitimate health claims. Our health – physical, mental, emotional, spiritual – will worsen as a result. It will mean a windfall of profits for insurance companies (and the politicians who greased the way), and legally move America to a completely profit-based health system operated by the insurance industry.
It is obvious but apparently still needs to be stated: health insurance rather than health care discriminates against the poor. Health insurance fattens the coffers of the insurance industry – long in bed with both parties. More importantly (to the rest of us), health insurance is a system in which health care decisions are made according to what fattens coffers, not according to what is healthy.
The worst part, perhaps, is the unnecessary absurdity of all this. We don't have to copy the Canadian system, the Australian system, or any others. Nothing has ever prevented any Congress or any Administration from having the Surgeon-General appoint a committee to study health care models in five or ten Western European countries (plus Canada and Australia for good measure). The goal of such a study would be recommending a model that will work best for America. I believe this would be a democratic health care system, in which the consumers of health care make the decisions about health care.
National health care, also known as socialized (uh-oh) medicine, is in place throughout much of the world. At best, it works like this: The national government levies a progressive health tax and uses the income thus derived exclusively to provide cradle-to-grave, comprehensive, universal health care. No fees, never a co-pay, from band-aids to major surgery, just go to the neighborhood health clinic or nearest hospital. It functions much as depicted in the movie Sicko.
Another method, as proposed by one of the candidates (Gravel), is to provide health care vouchers, funded by a progressive national sales tax. The vouchers would be valid for the health care and practitioners of the individual's choice, thus making Gravel's proposal comprehensive and universal as well.
What of the other candidates? We may dismiss Senator Chris Dodd (Connecticut) and Biden from further consideration because they, like Hillary, claim to be against the war but continue to vote for it. We may dismiss Obama, Edwards, and Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico) from further consideration because they, like Hillary, support the "war on terror" invented by George W. Bush. Like Hillary again, these other candidates see nothing wrong with using nuclear weapons against Iran.
This leaves Kucinich and Gravel. These two men agree in many areas: the need for immediate withdrawal from Iraq; the use of diplomacy rather than nuclear weapons in dealing with Iran; dismantling NAFTA; single-payer, universal, comprehensive health care; and medicinal marijuana to name a few. Gravel is fifteen years older, and was a Senator for twelve years. Kucinich has been a Representative for ten years, and perhaps may be best known for receiving the Gandhi Peace Award in 2003. He repeatedly has introduced legislation to create a U.S. Department of Peace. I believe Kucinich to be honorable and sincere.
Gravel was one of five U.S. Senators to express some of the earliest Congressional opposition to the Vietnam War. He may be best known for his creative and innovative efforts to end that war, especially his defying then-President Nixon by reading the top-secret Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. Most interesting in Gravel's current campaign is his call for a national referendum. This would allow citizens to "vote directly on issues which affect our daily lives."
While many of my friends and I are overjoyed at the notion of a vegan running for president, Kucinich just doesn't have the presidential vibe. I greatly approve of his politics, but he has that weird John Edwardsy-smile and always seems like he doesn't fit in, doesn't belong. While one certainly may consider not fitting in an item in Kucinich's favor, it's also somewhat discomfiting. You don't want to have a president whom others disrespect by shunned. Most world leaders don't respect Bush, but they don't shun him. Gravel on the other hand seems to have a presidential bearing and demeanor. If he were somehow to become president, I can see him putting Kucinich in the Cabinet. How about as Secretary of the new Department of Peace?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
