Myth - Democrats will Bring Peace to America

The United States seems to think that the democrats will end the current war. While both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have pledged to reduce the troop level in Iraq, neither are committed to a foreign policy of non-interventionism. In fact, while many think that they are voting for change, they are only voting for more of the same.

Barak Obama's website states that one of the goals of his government would be to grow the military. On his site he states that: "We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force." Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. His website also states the following: "Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people." The skeptic in me believes that Obama will only shift our military burdens to another region, rallying public support for the opportunity. You may say that Obama has spoken out on the current ware in Iraq, yet he has not voted to stop funding these operations.

On the same website, Obama states that his top foreign priorities are to: "End the Conflict in Congo, Stop the Genocide in Darfur, and ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership." One has to wonder how he would accomplish this by merely diplomatic means, especially since he declared that he may invade Pakistan to 'get' Osama Bin laden.

His competitor, Hillary Clinton, is even worse. While Obama was kind enough to outline his foreign policy on his website, Clinton did not, which leaves one wondering what she is trying to hide. Perhaps it is the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George Bush to engage in our current war.

Hillary Clinton calls for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the
tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII.

That may sound good, but Harry Truman gave us a legacy of constant war.  The Truman Doctrine ensured constant war,
with the Korean war setting the president for the war in Vietnam.

Hillary presents herself as the successor to Bill Clinton's foreign policy:

"I often met with he and his advisers, both in preparation for, during and after.

I traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department,occasionally the Defense Department, and even the CIA. So I was deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team in the first Clinton administration.
And I am someone who want the best possible advice from as many different sources as possible, and that would certainly include my husband."

The conservatives at the time largely condemned Clinton's preemptive strikes on Haiti, among other places.

When George Bush originally ran for office, he advocated that America would not be ' the policemen of the world'. No candidate offers even the superficial rhetoric of George Bush.

Despite talk, neither Candiate would normalize relations with Cuba:

Obama: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening. A presidential visit should not be offered without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

Clinton: I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some progress [on the US agenda in Cuba]. But I do think that it's important for the US not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies.

Neither candidate advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no candiate that is advocating a real change in American foreign policy. The question has become more of a matter of who we will fight against instead of if we should be fighting at all.

The American people, who largely favor peace, are given no real choice on the matter of war. Democrat or Republican, we march forward, ready for war anywhere and anytime.


It brings to mind the great speech that Howard Buffett (the Republican Nebraska Congressman and father of Warren Buffett) gave in 1947: "Mr. Speaker, the so called Truman Doctrine is characterized by proponents as probably the most far reaching change in the American foreign policy in 100 years. Many of its opponents contend it starts us on the road of militarism and imperialism. Whatever its consequences are, I rise to propound a solemn question. How, in the existing political framework of this nation, can the people of America, if they so desire, effectively oppose this policy? The policy is sponsored by the democratic party and collaborated in by the republican leadership. If the people disapprove of this adventure as many polls indicate, what recourse is left them when neither party provides the vehicle for effective opposition. When the republican leadership without consulting the people does a "me too" on decisive issues, what method do the people then have to effectively influence governmental policies? Under this situation it would appear that the people are losing the all important right to approve or reject decisive policies at the ballot box. For as matters now stand, neither party forwards the people the opportunity to effective oppose this global program. I respectfully urge the republican leaders responsible for this collaboration to explain this situation fairly and forthrightly to the American people. The people are entitled to a full explanation of a political performance which apparently deprives the people of an effective voice in determining America's future."