POLITICS: Independent Research Organization Offers Four-Year Political Forecast

The Interhemispheric Resource Center, an independent foreign policy research organization, has released a report offering their predictions for the second Bush presidential term. Among their findings: the war in Iraq will not lead to freedom and democracy; the CIA will become more subservient to the Pentagon, and foreign development aid will be cut unless it directly affects U.S. policy. The Center also predicts that other nations won't be so willing to put up with U.S. policy anymore: they predict an organized and unified counter-agenda by other nations.



Founded in 1979, the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), a progressive "virtual think tank," endeavors to "promot[e] progressive strategic dialogues that lead to new citizen-based agendas." With the goal of making the U.S. a better "global citizen" in mind, the IRC plans to release a post-election series of policy briefings in order to "recommend pragmatic reforms that not only will better serve U.S. national interests and security but will also help restore respect for the United States as a responsible global leader and partner."

In this first briefing, the IRC makes many predictions for the second Bush term, some of which are:

1) the U.S. will continue with its strategy to restructure the Middle East, and will also accelerate the pace at which actions are taken to do so;

2) the State Department and the CIA will continue to rubberstamp the wishes and opinions of the Pentagon and the vice-president's office, while dissenting voices are ignored;

3) the Democratic Party will distance itself from matters of national security, choosing instead to align itself with domestic issues in the hope of building constituencies;

4) a political counter-current will develop in Latin America against the growing right-wing politics of the U.S.;

5) nonprofit policy organizations, foundations, and activist groups, especially those to the left of center, will likely face increased government scrutiny, harassment, repression, espionage, and funding cutbacks.

This eight page report is undeniably wonkish, but offers nonpartisan insight into the possible issues facing the citizens of the U.S. in the next four years.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Banshee]

This is my first post to these boards but when I see statements like the above news and it is portrayed as "nonpartisan insight" it just makes me wonder. Do a google search on the names of the authors of the report: Tom Barry, Laura Carlsen, John Gershman and see if you agree that they are nonpartisian in their opinions.

Unbeliveable....


....and the fires start to burn within.

Populist: A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

Progressive: A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

These are the labels that the authors of this report attach to themselves. How exactly does this lead you to write them off as "partisan?" If you actually read the full report, you would see that they're none too taken with the actions of *either* political party.

Originally posted by pavil
This is my first post to these boards but when I see statements like the above news and it is portrayed as "nonpartisan insight" it just makes me wonder. Do a google search on the names of the authors of the report: Tom Barry, Laura Carlsen, John Gershman and see if you agree that they are nonpartisian in their opinions.

Welcome to the forums Pavil.

BTW, you will see a lot of what you just mentioned above. Reports that claim to be non-partisan, when in fact they have an agenda of their own.

Also, I have not read all of the information from that link, so i wasn't claiming that these people are partisans since i haven't done any research on them. I was making a general statement.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, you will see a lot of what you just mentioned above. Reports that claim to be non-partisan, when in fact they have an agenda of their own.

Well, let's see: "nonpartisan" means that there's no affiliation with a single party. Do they meet that requirement? Yes. As for "an agenda of their own," of course they have one. It's stated right in the article: "to help forge a new global affairs agenda for the U.S. government and people�one that makes the United States a more responsible global leader and partner."

Oh, and welcome to ATS, pavil. I'm honored to have ticked you off enough to join the fray.

[edit on 11/15/2004 by sandge]

Save the World�Dump Bush
by Laura Carlsen Interhemispheric Resource Center Director
from Left Turn magazine
www.leftturn.org...

I would just like to state that I was referring to the 1st post stating "nonpartisan insight" of the Interhemispheric Resource Center. While they do not state their political party beliefs, I would not say they are unbiased. As I said before, Judge for yourself.
Thanks for the welcomes btw.

George W. Bush and his team of neo-conservative empire builders have amply demonstrated their dangerous ineptitude in managing international affairs. No longer can the choice for president be dismissed as a choice between �the lesser of two evils��as if the candidates were merely placed at different points along the same political continuum. Three years into the Bush administration, we know enough about it to know that it is qualitatively different�and far more dangerous to the world�than anything the Democrats are likely to offer.

The Bush foreign policy based on preemptive strike, unilateral action, and ally bashing has not only made US citizens more insecure than ever. It has caused various degrees of suffering, fear and indignation throughout the world. Today�s victims of US counter-terrorism campaigns have been mostly Afghans, Iraqis, and Palestinians, whom the mainstream media has obligingly stereotyped as fanatics and uncivilized heathen so their dead children won�t pierce our hearts like our own. But their numbers are growing, and their sorrow will one day cross the barriers of culture and geography. By then it will likely have distilled into hatred.

Maybe it's just me but I rather doubt we would be in the same place we are in world history had we not been ATTACKED FIRST on 9/11.

For the record, liberals now refer to themselves as "progressives". To say that a "Progressive" organization is nonpartisan is a misnomer.

Maybe it's just me but I rather doubt we would be in the same place we are in world history had we not been ATTACKED FIRST on 9/11

There is a fair amount of controversy regarding just what happened on 911 and who is responsible. It is gaining momentum and is only a matter of time before the truth is known and broadly disseminated. As of today, the central questions of 911 have been dodged and obscured rather than answered. So, when you say, we were ATTACKED FIRST, it merely shows that you've bought into the official scenario when there is a great deal of foundational data yet to be disclosed and analyzed. You are far too quick to buy and swallow the offical line.

We were in the place we are now even before "the attack". That event merely made it become more prominent in the public eye and set the stage for what followed. This is a no brainer if you expend the samll effort the information, documentation, photographs, and video eveidence that is widely availabel, at least for now, on the internet. Get it before it's suppressed.

IMHO the developments predicted over the next few years by this research group are simply confirmations of what a lot of people think and sense already.

George Bush is making his stand clear coming out the gate. With an administration being lead by Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz, how could there not be waves? Big waves. The image this group projects to the world is one of arrogance, intolerance, divisiveness, violence and callous disregard. This is a very dangerous administration. Dangerous mostly for it's ineptness, greed, eagerness to use force, rather than diplomacy, to get what it wants, for it's tendency to make rash decisions on little info, and for it's inability to either admit mistakes or change course once mistakes are discovered.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I don't think it takes one to imagine that the next 4 years may be marked by bumps in the road, some sizeable, broken or damaged foreign relations, a more deeply divided nation, increasing civil unrest, a leaderless Free World and an America without a vision.

Why would anyone have voted for that? It's just sick ...



[edit on 11/16/2004 by netbound]

How about taking a deep breath and look at the meat of the assertions juxtaposed to current events? Before you start the cavemen fire side chant of "LIBERALS!!" ?
It is a fact that Iraq's volitility will make "freedom & democracy" impossible throughout the country - it will folllow the Afgan model, where the capitol region is secured and 'elections' take place, but the rest of the country is the domain of lawlessness & warloardss.
It is a fact that Porter Goss has already delayed the release of information damning to the current administration. He's also staffed key posts with, not CIA professionals, but Republican underlings from Capitol Hill. More resignations happen there each day because of it, and they're backfilled with more GOP drones.
It is a fact that Team Bush has severly cut back American aid to any organization that does not follow their "Christian" philosophy or Corporate interests. The World Health Organization, AIDS.....you name it, if it's not in line with GE's bottom line or the "teachings" at Bob Jones U., it's not getting a dime.
So ....don't waste your breath on these Junior Republicans 'Intellectuals', they're willfuly blind to the information that's right in front of them....even when it is literally in the next hyperlink in the same forum! The shadenfreude is that they're probably of draft age!

Originally posted by GD
For the record, liberals now refer to themselves as "progressives". To say that a "Progressive" organization is nonpartisan is a misnomer.

Rather than hijacking the thread through the use of the word "liberal," why don't you actually read the report and offer up your thoughts for the discussion?

Which of their predictions do you agree/disagree with?

The last bullet point reads:

"In this context, if the right-wing radicals are to face major setbacks, they will be the consequence more of their own excesses and divisions than because of the philosophical cohesion of any alternative policy framework or the deeply rooted strength of a united center-left opposition. In that case, the setbacks experienced by the radical right will be only temporary"

I have always thought that capitalism, since it requires growth to survive and is based on a limited amount of resources, would eventually collapse on itself, in spite of itself. I think the same of hard right politics. Extreme rightist thinking and policy is no less fascist than extreme leftist thinking and policy, and thus it will be opposed by the people.

Lack of compromise and recognition of opposing opinions and value systems is a prejudiced, intolerant, and ultimately unworkable state of affairs. Neoconservativism will result in nothing less than its overwhelming opposition and subsequent failure by way of revolution, either by the indigeony or outside influence.

Learn Russian and/or Spanish.