From Istanbul, a letter to Hillary Clinton's supporters.

[awaysidetraveler]

To Hillary Clinton's Supporters,

I’m a white guy from New York and New Orleans, living in Istanbul. Just around the corner from my apartment, there’s this avenue called Istiklal Cadessi, where thousands of people pour, swarming like bees around one another. The men wear business suits with long black coats, and most of the women don’t cover their hair. Some of the women do, but it’s not stylish here and most of the locals look down on the tradition, believing that it’s not modern and it runs against the city’s western roots.

A few burn victims from Iraq started showing up in the streets here, looking for work. It’s illegal for them to come to the cities, but many run the risk to try and find work. Like American illegal immigrants, they sometimes find jobs in kitchens or in construction.

This one fellow keeps walking through the street with his young wife. Half his face is charred, but you can still see how handsome he was by the other half. Such a stately impression he would make, if it weren’t for his eyes, glowering in anguish.

Turkey is much like America in many ways: it’s a country that embraces a wide variety of cultures and religions, one which practices freedom of religion and expression; it’s a democratic nation, and their patriotism stems from a sense of the importance of those same freedoms that are so dear to us; they even had a civil war, and that civil war bound their nation together as one in much the same way that ours did-–in blood; like us, they understand that if the multicultural integration of their culture fails, so their nation will also fail.

My host, Mustafa, didn’t know me from Adam when we met a few weeks ago. He needed to let a room and I took it. He’s fed me continually since then. Whenever he sees me, he asks if I’m hungry. That’s how people are around here: their hospitality and generosity surpasses ours, in general; one cannot go to the home of a Turk without leaving stuffed, it seems, with all of their finest; I offer Mustafa money for heat or groceries, but he refuses me. It is because of those people–the refugees, the soldiers and the victims–that I believe there is a moral issue at stake in our election. I believe that the existence of those people make a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton immoral.

Does that shock you?

Here’s why: Hillary Clinton’s plan for Iraq is to reduce troop levels now, leaving bases until around 2013. She believes it will prompt the Iraqis to take over their own government and leave enough time to maintain regional stability. It appears on paper to be a moderate plan, something that most democrats can agree with.

However there is no moderate, middle ground in this position: either we’re in Iraq or out. If we stay in, trying to maintain the peace in a region that’s developing a civil war, then we can only do so by bolstering troop levels. Troops will have to be there to do that work of creating peace-–if such a thing is possible at all. That’s McCain’s position. If that doesn’t work–which it hasn’t–then we’ll have to remove our troops, leaving no bases on the ground in Iraq.

Why can’t we leave bases, you ask? Well, there’s a little thing known as an “infidel” in the Muslim religion, and the word is used to describe other nations that leave troops in this land. If we stay, we are acting like "infidels" by leaving soldiers on their land and forcing our rules upon them. The Koran, which they hold in as high regard as we do the Bible, tells them that they must fight infidels (people who leave bases on their land) until they leave.

This is the truth of our diplomatic situation, which Obama understands and which much of the democratic party does not: leaving Iraq is the only reasonable and moral choice America can make.

I see no sign of Hillary Clinton recognizing this reality. Instead we have a clearly stated war policy that stands no chance of success: she will reduce troop levels, making our soldiers ineffective; and she will leave bases, making our soldiers infidels. This is not a plan for peace; it is a recipe for disaster.

It is on this moral ground that I cannot and will not ever vote for Hillary Clinton. How can I advocate the continuation of an endless war? This is the final division that cuts me away from my own party, stranding me and infuriating me. There are other reasons I will not rally behind her now, but this matter does not act like those other issues. I could look the other way on her bull futures, and I could chalk up the lies she’s told about Obama’s “pro-abortion” position as pure politics. I would rally behind her just as I have rallied behind all the other democratic candidates since Mondale.

I cannot rally behind Hillary Clinton, because I cannot advocate a continuation of this war.

Please don’t divide me from your party. I have no where else to go.

[Captain Hilts]

1. She does not support continuing this war. Another ignorant expat....nt

[awaysidetraveler]

3. She supports withdrawing troops and leaving bases... to be precise.

[paulk]

51. please post a link

for the "leaving bases".

[awaysidetraveler]

52. The same link works for bases until 2013.

Of course, HRC's come out against "permanent bases" in Iraq in a few pieces of legislation.

That much is true. However, her advocacy of both leaving "temporary" bases for an indefinite period of time
while reducing troops can only be described as a recipe for disaster.

Either we're in or we're out.

[Bread and Circus]

4. You haven't done your homework...

www.fpif.org

[awaysidetraveler]

7. Here's the NYTimes article on Hillary's war policy. It's specific.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html

[awaysidetraveler]

15. The same link can tell you about Obama's intention to remove all combat troops in 16 months.

John Edwards had some interesting specifics to add about Obama's war policy,
but it is a complete withdrawl with two exceptions: the embassy and the humanitarian aid soldiers would remain.

This idea is not a threatening one to the Iraqi people, who for the most part want us out of their country.

[ThatPoetGuy]

21. Ah, friend, you know he's parsing, right?

Of the 170,000 American troops in Iraq, fewer than half are "combat troops."

I want to see this mess resolved as badly as you do. The only candidates who would actually END this nonsense are lunatics: Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. I held my nose on Tuesday night and caucused for Obama, because I think he is -- marginally -- more committed to a liberal foreign policy than Hillary is. That gap may seem small, but lives are ruined in a hair's-breadth of difference.

And John McCain is a far more warlike candidate than any of ours.

[awaysidetraveler]

32. Wow, you lost this argument about three posts ago.

You--above all--know that Obama's policy will remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

He will leave protection only for the embassy and to guard humanitarian aid.

That's his policy.

HRC will reduce troop levels while leaving bases until around 2013.

That's her policy.

As for choosing between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I simply won't.

Neither of their policies can end in peace for Iraq, which I advocate.

[Eurobabe]

44. Not all of us Expats are ignorant, thankfully

:hi: :patriot:

[paulk]

50. actually, it reads like right wing spam

[quinnox]

2. Great, but I'm still voting for Hillary n/t

[awaysidetraveler]

5. Do you have a question or something to add?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. oy these darn Cicada's are everywhere

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[awaysidetraveler]

22. How about you write something of substance: some proof of my misunderstanding of HRC's war policy.

Please.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. YOu are distorting Clinton's position. She wants us out of Iraq.

YOur distortions and lies infuriate me.

[awaysidetraveler]

11. It's just the truth. Here's the New York Times article clarifying her position.

She'll leave bases and withdraw slowly.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. her position is no different than Edwards and Obama and Biden.

She wants to withdraw them as quickly as is safe for them. To pull them all out tomorrow would be inappropriate.

Why do people give so much credit to Obama who says the very same thing, but twists Clinton's position and goals for Iraq? I would have thought you people who lived far away would be immune to the press influence. I see that you are not.

The media is so powerful. I am so surprised that Clinton still stands after the constant distortions and attacks--that apparently people believe.

[awaysidetraveler]

16. Please read the policy, it is specific. She envisions American troops on the ground in 2013.

And she advocates the removal of ground troops.

That is different than what Obama says: Obama says he'll leave Iraq in the next 16 months.

I get my news from the New York Times. Do you believe that source is bad?

I am distorting nothing.

[awaysidetraveler]

17. You come across as angry, and you've called me a liar without offering any proof.

Please, send some proof to back up your claim that their policies are identical.

I would gladly rally behind any presidential candidate that will get us out of Iraq.

I will not back this war policy, no matter who presents it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I have not called you a liar. I am DAMN ANGRY

I am angry that the masses are buying the Obama load without question. I am ANGRY that Clinton's stance on the issues are twisted and distorted and Clinton is BLAMED FOR BUSH'S WAR.


I am angry that the weak and timid Obama is given credit for a meaningless speech he gave years ago--and not blamed for his lack of DOING ANYTHING AGAINST THE WAR when he could have.

I am angry at the double standard.

So, when you see those Iraq people who have suffered--WE ARE ALL to blame. IT ANGERS ME.

1. It is not Clinton's fault
2. She wants us out and plans JUST LIKE the rest of the democratic field to do it.
3. I did not call you a liar
4. It was Bush's war.

[awaysidetraveler]

20. If you are angry, then look up the actual differences in their war policies.

The policies are different.

1. I'm not saying it's Clinton's fault. I'm saying she's got a bad plan for ending it.
2. Her plan is not the same: she plans to leave bases until as late as 2013 while removing troops from Iraq.
That's in the New York Times article I sent you--look it up.
3. You did not call me a liar in this post. You did call me a liar in the last anti-war post I put up.
In this post, you claimed that I was writing "distortions" without offering any proof of the "sameness" of Obama's and Hillary's
plans.
4. Of course it was Bush's war. When did I ever write otherwise?

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. you are wrong. There is no substantive difference between Obama's and Clinton's

stance on Iraq war.

[awaysidetraveler]

40. The difference is this: Clinton will pull troops out and leave bases; Obama's out in 2009

Look at the facts I sent you.

[Maribelle]

10. How would you protect the aid workers that will need to remain as the combat troops are withdrawn?

And perhaps for a while after?

And what about protecting the US Embassy?

[awaysidetraveler]

12. Obama plans to use the UN to protect aid workers. And you're right, it will be difficult to leave.

Also Obama plans to protect the embassy, but embassies are not generally regarded in Shahira law as
infidel bases. It's different.

[russian33]

25. oh come on! since when?

US Embassy bombings, 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

US Embassy bombing, 1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing

[awaysidetraveler]

29. Yeah, they bombed our embassies, because we left soldiers in Saudi Arabia

That is in 1998.

In 1983, it had more to do with the CIA's involvement in Iran.

What's your point?

[russian33]

30. my point is your statement is wrong

"but embassies are not generally regarded in Shahira law as
infidel bases. It's different."

embassies were attacked before, and they will be attacked again...to think that our embassy in baghdad will not be a target, is foolish, and dangerous to those who are working there

[awaysidetraveler]

33. Obama will guard that embassy.

And Shahira law does not regard embassies as infidel bases.

The embassies that they've struck have all been in response to different issues.

The two examples you gave illustrate that perfectly: the CIA's involvement in Iran led to the first embassy attack in Lebanon,
and the second bombing in Nigeria was a radical response to the bases in Saudi Arabia.

I've got to say goodnight... it's been real.

[russian33]

14. seriously? no, is this like a joke post?

"Turkey is much like America in many ways: it’s a country that embraces a wide variety of cultures and religions, one which practices freedom of religion and expression; it’s a democratic nation..."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

this is the same Turkey that makes it illegal to use the word genocide, and punishable by jail time?
same Turkey that refuses to acknowledge genocide of 1.5 million armenians?
same one, the bastion of democracy?

[awaysidetraveler]

19. There's a few things about the culture here that you'd have to know to understand.

I agree that the Armenian Genocide occurred and was horrible.

The discussion of that genocide means something different in Turkey than it does in America.

It's normal here for feuds between families to go on for centuries.

Part of the reason the media here censors the Armenian genocide is to force a discontinuation of those feuds.

Armenians and Kurds come to my house here. A friend of Mustafa is Kurdish, and he's marrying a Turkish model.

Armenians and Kurds run for office and win, and they work in the parliament.

Is there another, more democratic nation in the Middle East?

[russian33]

23. don't democracy and freedom of speech kind of go hand in hand?

this is not democracy in action

http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=14391

(well, maybe in Bush world only) :)

[awaysidetraveler]

27. Freedom of speech and democracy do in fact go hand in hand.

Many Turks dislike Obama, because he recognizes the Armenian genocide.

Obama was also correct in doing so.

My only point about the censorship issue is that it's more complicated than it seems from an American perspective.

You're talking about an issue of civil war here, the divisions are old enough and deep enough to force this policy of censorship.

The censorship they're using is designed to eliminate that conflict: that's all I'm saying.

I don't think it's good, and I don't think that their degree of free speech compares with ours.

I think it would be better if it did.

However, as I examine the rest of the Middle East, I see no more democratic Muslim nation.

And I think that it's impressive that Turkey has come as far as it has.

[cascadiance]

38. And it's not just about Kurds and Armenians...

But when Ataturk threw out a lot of the caliphate, etc. earlier, and put in rather draconian secular rules in many places, it was done not so much to punish any one religion, but to try to reduce conflict between them instead. There were a lot of other religious sects, there that also could be in conflict (sufis which are the typical whirling dervishes you see that are in Konya there that believe in musical expression where other sects of Islam completely reject it).

That's why it's also been technically illegal to wear the fez in Turkey as well, though Turks are portrayed as wearing them all of the time (like the cartoon characters in Yellow Submarine). They basically tried to enforce more of a deference to nationalism than to religion adherence, and it sounds like the people are still trying to deal with that conflict today, with a strong military seeking to enforce this secularism, but many parts of it causing other problems and lack of freedoms, but trying to prevent a very chaotic environment where various tribal religious sects are constantly fighting each other. Some of us here in this country can't understand those harsher rules, but if you understand the Turks, I guess from a pragmatic point of view, one can see why this happens and is needed there, where it would be something that many of us would abhor here, though with this administration and the increased fear we have now, you can see those kind of harsh rules entering our society too. Ideally you'd like to see this sort of harsh rule not needed, but the society needs to show that people can live with each other and have tolerance for their differences. I think a lot of those cities like Ankara and Istanbul are evolving to that. But in the country there I think it's harder to get people to see the value of that.

I guess to help some people understand it here, look at how some public schools in inner cities in this country restrict people from wearing colors that local gangs usually wear to define their turf as things like 'Crips' and 'Bloods' to prevent any kind of conflicts in school settings. It's a similar kind of set of rules that you see there to enforce civility where not having those rules could create problems.

[awaysidetraveler]

41. Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. Thanks, I didn't really know how to put that.

The 'Crips' and 'Bloods' metaphor does seem accurate.

The freedom of expression issue in Turkey is more complicated than it seems from an American point of view.
And of course, there's nothing wrong with freedom of expression in Turkey, until that expression leads to sectarian violence.
Similarly, there's nothing wrong with wearing blue or red to school, unless wearing those colors means you're a gang member.

At the same time, an honest and diplomatic discussion of Armenian and Kurdish issues needs to occur within Turkey to ensure peace.
And those issues are sensitive and complicated issues.

The Iraq war is complicating those issues and compounding them.

[russian33]

24. as for understanding culture and such...

i was born in Azerbaijan, next door to Turkey...so i have an idea about culture
and I'm Armenian, with family members who were killed in 1915...so to me, genocide is genocide
it wasn't a family feud, and imply that it was such, is insulting
holocaust victims and the event itself, get the proper recognition...and this 'democratic' country refuses to accept it's mistakes, so pardon me, if i have reservations in accepting them with open arms as the voice of reason, and the shinning example of democracy in the middle east

[awaysidetraveler]

28. Genocide is genocide.

I apologize.

Please understand, I am repeating what I see from this perspective.

When I ask others what they say about the Armenian genocide, this is what they say.

Obama recognizes the Armenian genocide.

Hillary Clinton does not.

[russian33]

31. ok, i'm really trying to be polite, cause you seem like a really cool and nice person

but, you keep stating things, that are factually wrong

HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTS ADOPTION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION; PLEDGES TO RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AS PRESIDENT


“Our common morality and our nation’s credibility as a voice or human rights challenge us to ensure that the Armenian Genocide be recognized and remembered by the Congress and the President of the United States.” -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)


http://anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1367

[awaysidetraveler]

34. Interesting! The press here is lying about that! Hey, thanks for the link!

I'll spread the news around.

[russian33]

35. happy to help

:)

[awaysidetraveler]

42. Yeah, it's appreciated. I can't help but wonder why the press here isn't talking about Hillary's

recognition of the Armenian genocide.

Any thoughts?

[cascadiance]

48. Perhaps it stems back to Bill's role with Hastert and the genocide bill going through congress...

Of course, many here know that Hillary Clinton is one of Sibel Edmonds' dirty dozen list she issued a couple of years ago before the 2006 election, as standing in the way of whistleblowers coming out on the problems she's seen with Turkish and Israeli groups being a part of the neocon cabal in illegal WMD and drug trading.

Hastert was alleged to have taken many small bribes from Turkish groups as documented by the Vanity Fair article on Sibel Edmonds back in 2006 which she overheard on tapes saying that they had gotten "Denny boy" to stop the genocide bill from going to the House floor by doing so. Donation records corroborate the allegation that he collected a LOT of small and undocumented donations at that time (was far more than any other member of congress).

The excuse that Hastert gave to rationalize his sudden reversal of putting the genocide bill before the House was that Bill Clinton had asked him to do that in interest of diplomatic relations (presumably with Turkey).

Now, if it was these other donations that motivated Hastert to pull the bill from the House and NOT Bill Clinton's letter to that effect, don't you think Bill Clinton would have known that this other "influence" was the real source of that bill not going through congress, and if he genuinely didn't want to see Hastert corrupted in such a fashion, would have taken issue with Hastert's representation that it was Clinton himself that convinced Hastert to keep that resolution off the floor?

One explanation would be that he was totally oblivious to that and didn't follow that bill that closely. Another might be that the Clintons were complicit or at least were knowledgeable about and stood by in this whole bribery mess and what's been going on behind the scenes with the ATC and AIPAC rumored funneling of weapons secrets to countries like Pakistan via Marc Grossman and others in this administration. And Grossman probably was the real criminal in exposing Valerie Plame and her CIA group before Libby and others did. You know it was Clinton that actually hired Grossman to start with! My guess is that might be another reason why the Clintons are on Sibel's shit list, and perhaps also a reason why there's a bipartisan effort in congress to keep her silenced, not just from the Republicans (aka Waxman not doing anything to have her testify before his committee).

Though I have lived in Turkey and like many Turks I know and their food and culture, I recognize that just like we have a lot of deep rooted corruption that's infecting this government like a cancer that needs to be rooted out and put down, that they have some similar problems now as well, that doesn't necessarily reflect on all of the Turks there too, who have come more and more to reject our imperialist actions there and kept the government from supporting the initial invasion of Iraq. It's a very complicated issue, and to try and oversimplify things by just calling them the bad guys on one issue of the "denial of the genocide" is perhaps more damaging to helping get rid of the real problem elements over there towards giving them a true democratic society where Kurds and Armenians can live there without fear of repression.

[awaysidetraveler]

55. I agree with you on a number of these issues.

I agree with you about the main issue at hand, which is the importance of including democratic rights for the Kurds and the Armenians. The American oversimplification of the diplomacy necessary to validate those democratic rights is shocking from this point of view.

Bush's diplomacy in Turkey is worse than any prior, of course. Hopefully Obama can do better.

I'm still researching some of what you've written here. It's facinating. Thanks for the input.

[Zodiak]

36. ...I do not see what your problem is

If what you say is true, it does sound much like America. Look up our history and our collective failure to learn anything from it...1.5 million is far less than we have killed in imperialistic wars.

All the author said was much like America.

[Nimrod2005]

26. Have fun, thank you.

[awaysidetraveler]

47. Will do, and thank you.

[cascadiance]

37. If you're in Turkey, perhaps you could set up a row of signs like this to greet any neocons...

who come to visit Turkey... you could easily put in pictures of other people besides Bush.



For those who don't know Turkish, here's the appropriate translations to help understand them...

piç = bastard (pronounced "peach")

im = "sign of"

im piç = "sign of bastard" (pronounced "IMPEACH!")

So you see how these signs together work on many levels! :)

I lived in Ankara back in the late 60's and early 70's... Had some different issues then, but it was westernized then there in the city much like you describe Istanbul as being now. Though they didn't have McDonald's and other chain restaurants move in then like they are in there now. We could only get hamburgers on the American base there then, not that I ache for hamburgers now living back in the states at all. About the only chain they had then was Haci Bey's, which I'd like to think still exists there some place. Their Iskender Doner Kebab was the best. Have a dish for me!

I see what you are saying, and another reason that I'm having difficulty supporting Clinton as well.

[awaysidetraveler]

43. Great pictures! Yeah, American policies in Iraq have driven our approval rating in Turkey down

to an all time low.

9% according the last Gallup poll. 1% according to the latest news.

I agree with your assessment: we should impeach Bush.

[cooolandrew]

45. An amazing post. A very worthy K& R

[awaysidetraveler]

46. Hey thanks! I appreciate the compliment.

Now if I could get a Hillary supporter to recognize HRC's position on the Iraq war,
my day would be complete.

Should I hold my breath?

[jakem]

49. please dont hold your breath!

you will not outlast the Clintons supporters stubbornness!

But thank you for your post. very well reasoned.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. The point of the bases is to harness & privatize Iraqi oil wells. Hillary admitted this herself.

[awaysidetraveler]

54. Has she? That's the kind of specificity that we need here on DU.

Also, I love the photograph! Thanks!