I had to link this old old frame from a comic over at Sore Thumbs, a webcomic that’s occassionally political but regularly hilarious, because it’s the only thing I could think of when the news came down that Bill Clinton was making an unannounced personal trip to North Korea to request the release of two American journalists for Current TV, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, that were being held there and being prepared to serve a 12-year sentence in a North Korean labor camp. No sooner than the news broke that he was headed there and that he had arrived did we get news that not only had North Korean leader Kim Jong Il pardoned the two women, but that they would be flying home with Clinton on his private jet.

That’s right – Bill Clinton saves the day, and I say that while resisting the string of curse words I want to use to describe how emphatically pleased I am with this development. And I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this wasn’t Bill’s idea to begin with, this idea was born in the halls of the Obama Administration, wanting desperately to do something here, seeing an opportunity to engage North Korea, but understanding that doing it in any official capacity would appear awkward and like some kind of trade.

To that end, the right-wing pundits and officials who would rather drop bombs than say thank you, were, no sooner than the release of Ling and Lee were officially announced, claiming there had to have been some kind of trade, some kind of deal, where Clinton carried some kind of concession or agreement to the North Koreans in order to negotiate the journalists’ release. Even former UN ambassador (a title he couldn’t earn so he had to be appointed in recess behind the back of Congress) John Bolton had the nerve to sit in interviews and essentially say “well, it’s nice they’re back BUT…” and launch into a string of talking points designed to turn good news into doom and gloom like only a conservative spin-master could. Both the Obama administration and spokespeople for former President Clinton claim there was no such agreement or arrangement and that Bill was traveling as a private citizen and former head of state, not in any official capacity. Frankly, I agree.

North Korea’s irrational actions on the world stage are very easily explained when you understand the mentality of a threatened child – and I don’t say that to belittle the North Korean regime: I say it because it’s frankly accurate. Every time the North Koreans feel like the international community is ignoring them, disrespecting them, or threatening them in some way, they launch a few missles, make some loud declarations, and maybe sentence some trespassing journalists in a border region to hard labor instead of sending them home and showing their good side. Then attention is turned to them and they feel like the trend of negotiations is turning their way, they show the good side again, wanting to impress to the world that the last thing they would want is to cause harm to others, and what they’re really interested in is self-security.

Which side is the real side? I think most people have made up their minds, myself included, but I would warn anyone that there are always two sides to every coin, whether you believe it or not. But the reaction to this wonderful news should be clear proof to the American people who’s interested in their well being versus who’s interested in their own well being – someone willing to go out on a limb for them, each and every one of them, and those who would cast their countrymen aside in favor of their own pride.

[ Bill Clinton Departs North Korea With Two Freed US Journalists ]
Source: TruthOut

The American media noted the street parties that broke out all across the country, including here in the great city of Washington DC, after John McCain conceded the race and Barack Obama gave his victory speech as President-Elect of the United States.

What was subtly missed until the next couple of days, and even then only on talk radio programs dedicated to real analysis (read: NPR programming) is the fact that the rest of the country breathed a sigh of relief along with us. Even conservatives in the UK and Australia were thrilled at the news, and celebrations broke out around the world on every continent cheering for a new day in America’s standing in the world – what was seen as a mistake made in 2004 following an innocent mistake in 2000 were finally rectified, and the rest of the world was watching closely to see if they really were mistakes, or a real course America wanted to chart for itself.

Thankfully, we all knew they were just mistakes – we just had to ante up and prove it to the global community. When we did, they were estatic – front pages around the world heralded a new day in politics, and world leaders rushed to call President-Elect Obama to congratulate him in the middle of the night.

As Wednesday dawned rainy and gray on the Champs- Élysées, a Parisian waiter spontaneously gave a fist pump and shouted, “Obamamania! Yeah!”

Johannesburg, South Africa – The world, which has tracked this American election like no other, sees Barack Hussein Obama as their president, their choice. And they see him through their own geographical and cultural prisms. To many, he represents the restoration of faith in American democratic ideals, of equality. The global euphoria over the election of the first black US president is also partly an expression of a populace that wants to believe that the same principles can apply to their lives, too.

Of course, as the son of a Kenyan goatherd, he’ll be Africa’s man at the White House, say Kenyans. But his appeal seems to transcend his heritage or his skin color. In Pakistan, for example, where politics has been the province of a wealthy elite, Mr. Obama is a powerful symbol for the dispossessed masses. Yes, he went to Harvard University. But also went to a Muslim elementary school in Indonesia. “They will say, ‘He is one of us,’” says Rasul Baksh Rais, a political scientist at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

In Saudi Arabia, many young Saudis have been affectionately using his middle name, dubbing him “Abu Hussein,” or “Father of Hussein.” Here, he symbolizes a restoration of faith in the democratic freedoms that Saudis don’t yet have. “Saudis … did not really believe in the American version of democracy. How could they when all the presidents of the so-called ‘melting pot’ were Anglo,” writes Eman Al-Nafjan in her post on the Saudiwoman’s Weblog. “But now they are rubbing their eyes in disbelief.”

Similarly, Liu Na, a high school teacher in Beijing, China, said Wednesday that “his victory proves that there is real democracy in the United States.” She added, “He is not from a family of profound influence…. Obama has a very international background, which represents America’s special situation; so many citizens are immigrants. He relied on his own hard work and abilities to go so far.”

It’s more than heartwarming to know that not only are so many of us here at home incredibly proud to be Americans – more so than we’ve ever been – but that there are so many people out there looking at the people of our humble corner of the world not with the suspicion, fear, and wary that have been cultivated over the past 8 years, but with thoughts of love, peace, justice, and like us, hope.

[ What Obama's Election Means Abroad ]
Source: The Christian Science Monitor (courtesy of TruthOut)

On today, the day after September 11th, it’s worth pointing out how some people in power took advantage of a tragic moment that will live forever in the minds and hearts of Americans and in American history as an opportunity to seize power and inject the American people with a healthy dose of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The more frightened the American people were, the more they could keep us controlled, and slowly but surely we’re breaking out of that shell. Why? We’re coming to terms with the failures of the people who have propagated these lies, and we’re looking back in time and rethinking our frightened, knee-jerk reactions to the fear they’ve fostered. With that in mind, here’s a few myths about national security that have been repeated so often in the media that you’ve likely heard them all before.

Some of the highlights? The myth that Islamofaacism is our greatest national security threat, the myth that we have to give up some civil liberties in times of war to keep us safe, the myth that we’re “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” one that makes me particularly sick, and the myth that our current strategy must be working because there hasn’t been another attack.

[ Ten Conservative Myths about National Security ]
Source: Campaign for America’s Future

Good old John McCain. In some ways, I wish the attacks against him hadn’t started so early this campaign season, but frankly, he’s making it entirely too easy to call him out for his language and his policies.

If everyone were listening, this week should have been the week that all but ended his chances at being President, but not everyone was listening, I’m afraid, which is why these 10 gaffes bear repeating, even if the author at Alternet tends to overuse the “flip-flop” label (not entirely unjustified though, it was the right that invented the term, it’s only fair they be called out when their representatives do the same):

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security “an absolute disgrace.”

2. McCain’s top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of “whiners” for being worried about the slumping economy.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop.

4. McCain’s economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable.

5. McCain’s deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop.

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support. (McCain claimed that “economists” supported his economic plan, and even included a letter signed by 300 of them…trouble was the economists that “signed” were signing on to something entirely different- NOT McCain’s economic plan)

7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians.

8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics.

9). McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.

10.) McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The trouble is, each one of these is incredibly salient, and hits McCain on every single point on which he believes he can stand out to Obama: the economy, the war, and national security and defense. In each instance, McCain proves that he’s not only out of touch with the American people and what they want from their government, but that he has this mad delusion that the policies of the past 8 years have been remotely successful.

[ 10 McCain Gaffes from This Week That Should Have Damaged His Chances ]
Source: Alternet

Two closely related articles here. The first interesting point is that Karl Rove received and subsequently ignored an Iranian peace offer in 2003 that may have had the opportunity to stem a great deal of the blustering debate and threatening action by both sides made up to this point. He personally received it, and then ignored it outright. While I don’t specifically point the finger at Rove himself for this-I have no doubt in my mind that anyone else in the Bush White House would have done the exact same thing and subsequently covered it up, including President Bush himself. The chilling point is that it happened in 2003, as the Iraq war was beginning, and before Iranian nuclear capabilities made front page news as an imminent threat to American security.

On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman speaks with Tita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), about what happened in 2003. It’s also worthy of note that Iran has repeatedly said, including to a massive American religious delegation that went there this month to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad [ Religious Delegation to Iran meets with President Ahmadinejad ] that they’re open to talks with the United States to work out our collective differences diplomatically without strings, conditions, or exchanging bribes or aid – that we simply need to drop our conditions and they’ll drop theirs. (our conditions are that Iran can talk with us, but for us to come to the table they have to stop their nuclear program) The message from both the delegation and Parsi is that Iran is ready to talk, but we won’t until we get what we want. Whether or not that’s a good idea, and whether or not we should waive our conditions are another debate, one that I personally don’t have an opinion on right now, but I wonder how much good holding out a demand in exchange for talks does.

[ Ex-Congressional Aide: Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003 ]
Source: Democracy Now! (courtesy of TruthOut)

In an ironic twist, John Edwards is saying what most of us who aren’t blinded by old hate for Iran (even if that disgust is well-founded, no one should forget what happened in 1979, but harboring an old hatred over it may not be wise) is thinking, that a comprehensive peace accord with Iran and a commitment to work to resolve our differences is not just possible, but would be an incredible step towards restoring American credibility around the world, healing our rifts with our neighbors, and showing those nations displeased with us that we’re not a blind juggernaut who can’t be spoken with:

[ Edwards: Treaty With Iran Possible ]
Source: ABC News

I can only hope that whomever wins the White House, whether it’s Edwards or someone else, heeds his suggestions. The world would be a safer place if we engaged those who oppose us at the table of diplomacy first and hardest, rather than opting to go to the mat in blood first, even if some of those enemies would rather do the same.

Some good news is in order, and while we generally think of Africa as a war-torn continent rife with ethnic conflict, the reality is that much of the news from the African continent these days is good. Africa is not nearly as violent as it has been in past years, and with the help of peacekeepers, trade opportunities, and sincere diplomatic efforts to compliment the presence of African peacekeepers (not foreign ones), much of the continent’s strife has begun to show significant signs of progress. There’s a long way to go, naturally, and many regimes and governments are still either isolated, clinging to power and rejecting social reforms, or incredibly impoverished. Even so, a lot of work has been done, and the road is paved for more:

Over the past six years, peace agreements have been signed in Angola (2002), the Democratic Republic of Congo (2002), Eritrea-Ethiopia (2000), Ivory Coast (2005), Liberia (2003), Senegal (2004), Sierra Leone (2000) and Southern Sudan (2005). Several more conflicts have ended in military victory or simply petered out. And other countries are moving towards peace: Burundi’s last active rebel group signed a ceasefire in September, negotiations between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan government may end a brutal 19-year old war and recent events in Somalia could bring some much-needed stability.

But it’s not just the number of wars that is down. The number of countries beset by wars in Sub-Saharan Africa also declined from 13 to 4 between 1999 and 2005, allowing more governments to focus on development.

Perhaps most importantly, the severity of conflicts is way down in Sub-Saharan Africa (and globally). Although combat deaths are notoriously tricky to measure accurately, the number of combatants and civilians killed directly by the fighting (‘battle-deaths’) dropped over 95 percent, from close to 100,000 in 1999 to around 2,000 in 2005. In 1999, the average conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa had over 6,000 battle-deaths per year. In 2005, the figure was less than 400.

The news of course, given the conflicts in Darfur and in Somalia for example, is not all good. But the fact that the continent is making progress, with positive reinforcement from the rest of the global community, is heartening.

[ Waging Peace In Africa ]
Source: TomPaine.com

An incredible list of things that the Republicans would like you to have completely forgotten by the time you get to the ballot box, replaced completely with the sense of fear that they’ve been trying desperately to instill in all of us with commentary like “To the Democrats, the terrorists win and America loses,” and so on, like the “What’s at stake” ads.

Here’s a few tidbits from the list:

* Republicans want you to forget that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

* Republicans want you to forget that while the Republican Policy Committee was opposed to the deployment of U.S. Soldiers to Bosnia under President Clinton,they’ll brand you a terrorist if you oppose President Bush’s war in Iraq.

* Republicans want you to forget that they inherited the biggest surplus in the history of the United States when they assumed control of all three branches of the United States government in 2000 when they took power, and turned it into the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

* Republicans want you to forget that they had a plan to attack Iraq drawn up long before 9/11

* Republicans want you to forget that they have people in their party who solicit sex from underage boys – and when they get caught, they just quit and oh darn, Congress has no authority over private citizens so now Mark Foleycannot be prosecuted.

* Republicans want you to forget that they use racial slurs on colleagues’ voicemail. When they are caught, they say they are drunks.

See these, and more, and reference information for each one of these statements, linked below:

[ Stay On Target ]
Source: EightandFive

We can hope and pray and go to the polls and make our own voices as clear as a bell on election day; we can do everything we can to vote in more compassionate, fair-minded, flexible, and representative officials; but a series of significant questions remain, sadly.

The Democrats and progressive candidates running in jurisdictions around the country have long told us the failings of their Republican counterparts, and indeed linked them to the massive power chain that leads all the way down from the White House and the annals of the conservative power cabal that rules Capitol Hill and the White House from their offices on K street. They’ve been incredibly successful in this regard; because massive discontent with the status quo can often be enough to get you elected. But what’s been missing from the progressive message is not just how wrong the conservatives have been, and how dangerous a direction America is headed-we all know this, and we’ve all heard it-but what progressive candidates and Democrats running for office can really truly do for our country. In essence, don’t just tell the public why you’re not bad, tell the public why you’re (and subsequently, what you can do) better.

With regard to Americas dismal relationship with the rest of the world and our stubborn and overly aggressive foriegn policy, Immanuel Wallerstein, senior research scholar at Yale University, andauthor of The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World, has a few choice words for progressive candidates looking to unseat their conservative rivals and replace their domineering attitude about the rest of the world:

But what will a Democratic Congress do that is better? That, as everyone has remarked, is not at all clear. Indeed, one has to doubt that the Democrats collectively have a really better foreign policy to offer. The primary problem of the leadership of the Democratic party is that they believe, at least as much as the Republicans, that the United States is the center of the world, the font of wisdom, the great defender of world freedom—in short, a deeply virtuous nation in a dangerous world.

Worst of all, they seem to believe that, merely by purging the element of exaggerated unilateralism practiced by the current regime, they will be able to restore the United States to a position of centrality in the world-system, and regain the support of their erstwhile allies and supporters, first of all in western Europe and then everywhere else in the world. They seem really to believe that it’s a matter of form, not substance, and that the fault of the Bush regime is that it wasn’t good enough at diplomacy.

It’s true that not all Democrats feel that way, and indeed for that matter not all Republicans and independents. But at this moment, those who are ready to take a real look at the fallacies of U.S. policies are a minority—furthermore, a minority without a clear agenda themselves and certainly without a major political leader to express an alternate view.

A frightening thought in a few regards; that serious discussions about changing course with regard to our foriegn policy will be limited to a minority of progressives who would prefer real diplomacy and substantial change in the way America deals with its neighbors, treats its allies, and engages its opponents. Wallerstein goes on to predict a few foriegn policy setbacks in the future that Democrats will doubtlessly be blamed for, and put the deteriorating situation in Iraq in historical context. Still, when Democrats take at least one and hopefully both houses of Congress this fall, they may remember the importance of such a discussion.

[ Foreign Policy Blindness ]
Source: TomPaine

I’ve been dreaming of a new American relationship with the middle east for years. Wishing that American diplomats in the region would remember that you only really need to sit at the negotiating table and talk with your enemies, not your friends-your friends will naturally agree and take your side, but the people you desperately need on the other side of the table are the people who disagree with you-you’ll never make progress any other way. But that being said, “progress” is a dirty word for the political ideology that currently dominates global politics.

The middle east needs democracy, but not at the barrel of a gun. The middle east needs America, but not flying overhead or attempting to isolate their leaders. There’s a hard line to be taken, and a dangerous aspect to going to the negotiating table with countries like Iran and Syria, but if we never do, we’ll never understand what motivates them, and never, ever, have the opportunity to work with them to improve relations and start the long long road to resolving our differences. The middle east wants democracy, but not a transplant from Washington DC; they want to grow it themselves, incorporate their own values and morals, and truly be a part of their governments, truly have a stake in their nations-then, when people believe that they have a stake, they have something to be proud of and fight for, they’ll stop blowing themselves up to fight against it.

Shadi Hamid, founding member and associate at The Project on Middle East Democracy, agrees with me, or rather, I agree with Hamid, at least in principle. In an excellent piece published at TomPaine, Hamid outlines why nations in the middle east view western democracy suspiciously-they still hear the ringing of a western imperialist part that arbitrarily drew national boundaries and split up tribal homelands, and they’re wary of doing that to themselves. And they have every right to be-they simply need to turn on western television networks to hear about all the problems we have with our democracies, and wonder if getting it, by hook or by crook, by bomb or by rifle, is necessarily a good idea.

Hamid writes:

Some commentators —including most recently the American Prospect’s Matt Yglesias —have argued that the central problem in the Middle East is not so much its lack of democracy but, rather, “the enduring legacy of imperialism.” According to this line of reasoning, the solution to our Mideast dilemmas would be to change the policies that Middle Easterners hate the most. Unfortunately, the list of grievances is so long, that to actually redress them would, one suspects, take a very, very long time. Moreover, in a region where our vital interests are engaged, it is unlikely that an avowedly “anti-imperialist” foreign policy—whatever that might mean in practice—will stand a chance of being supported by either political party. More fundamentally, however, this diagnosis fails to grasp the real source of our difficulties in the Middle East.

It’s not so much that people are angry at us, but rather that people have no political outlet with which to express their anger in a peaceful, legitimate manner.

Well said.

[ The Wisdom Of Exporting Democracy ]
Source: TomPaine.com

I really can’t top the language in this actual article; essentially it boils down to a offhand comment that the President made after the London arrests took place, where he told the American people that we were still facing a threat from “Islamic Fascists,” ushering a new hateful term next to the word “Islamic” which, aside from being irrelevant by definition, made the Muslim community squirm in their seats at having their religion associated with fascism. But who are the “facsists” again? Allow me to blockquote the opening from the article, written by Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D., a political science professor, in a series about real Fascism and modern America:

Neo-conservatives decided that World War III is to be waged against “Islamic-Fascists” or “Islamo-Fascism.”

Who is reading from the new script? William Kristol, Bill O’Reilly, Christopher Hitchens, Michelle Mankin, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Nick Cohen, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Daniel Pipes, Glenn Beck, Oliver North – even George W. Bush, prompting legitimate complaints from Muslim-Americans.

How many names in there do we know? An impressive number of hatemongers, liars, crooks, bigots, racists, sexists, and other American extremists-heck, even our good old friend Glenn Beck is in the list. Not at all surprising. Let’s continue:

Middle Eastern powers include pan-Arab socialist dictatorships (Syria), monarchies (Saudi Arabia), constitutional theocracies (Iran), and assorted fundamentalist movements. None are “fascist.” For three decades of political scientists, “fascism” is a phenomenon of industrialized societies and exhibits features alien to the Middle East.

Classical fascism was evident in inter-war Italy, Germany and Japan, and full-blown fascism exhibits three dimensions: economic, political and cultural.

Bosworth goes on to define Fascism, and explain how as objectionable as the regimes in the middle east are, they’re nothing remotely similar to fascist, and that the very term was likely either tossed out in a moment of ignorance by the President and similarly latched onto by his gaggle of apologists and attack dogs, chomping at the bit at any opportunity to be as hateful and divisive as possible, or there was a far more malicious and distasteful rationale behind the President’s choice of words, one which is far more disturbing than the words themselves.

Bosworth is even kind enough to follow up his analysis of the Bush Administration’s failures in logic with regard to Islamic fundamentalism and its associated movement across the middle east (a lack of understanding and respect for one’s enemy that will more than likely-and already has in several ways-prove to be influential in the overall failure of current American foriegn policy) with some examples of how we can make progress at home. His words may ring from the GOP’s tin ears, but they’re definitely heard in the progressive community:

It’s not fair to perform a vivisection of the Bush regime without pointing to what a healthier body politic might look like – a “post-crisis” body politic.

1) The restoration of the checks and balances, and limited government, of a democratic republic. This includes voter protections and a pencil-paper-box voting system.

2) The restoration of foreign relations to open diplomacy (as envisioned by the Founders) – to the power of persuasion – unless attacked, upon which military force will be restricted to the forces demonstrably responsible. This means no foreign aid, no weapons sales, no forward bases, and no committing political adultery by dividing loyalties between the people of the United States and any foreign power. The American people can express their solidarity with people around the world with short-term disaster relief.

3) Challenging both Israel and Arab powers to follow the letter of international law. Compliance means full participation in an international economy and community (the carrot); and resistance invites the atrophy of embargoes, travel restrictions, and blockages (the stick). Under UN Resolution 181, Israel secures its right to exist according to the 1948 borders, with protection from the United Nations. Simultaneously, Israel withdraws all of its settler colonies from the West Bank, illegal under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” And Jerusalem becomes the international city as intended in 1948.

4) Challenging the world’s people and states with a transformative proposal: universal nuclear disarmament. If states do not disarm, take the proposal to their peoples. Inspired, motivated and determined, masses of people will quickly sideline both foot-dragging politicians and terrorists. The best weapon against terror is not the US Army; it is civilized men and women everywhere. The world is ready to make nuclear weapons – and then war – extinct.

Thomas Paine: “We have it in our power to make the world new again.”

[ Welcome to Neo-Fascism 101 ]
Source: Virtual Citizen