Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAntiwar Groups Fear Barack Obama May Create Hawkish Cabinet
Activists note that most of the candidates for top security posts voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq or otherwise supported launching the war.
WASHINGTON - Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.
![[Reading the signs. Anti-war activists and organizers are trying to bridge the gap between cynicism and optimism. They want to capitalize on the enthusiasm and energy that the Obama victory has stirred, while maintaining a level of pressure that isn't overly critical at the outset. Although resisting discouragement at this early stage, it's imperative that they 'express concern' over certain directions the President-Elect seems to be taking in cabinet choices and advisers.]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/stopwar1120.jpg "stopwar1120.jpg")
The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be
in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other
short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go
to war.
"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.
The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.
The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.
Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.
"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.
Clinton, who was Obama's chief opponent during the Democratic presidential primaries, appears to be the top candidate for secretary of State in his administration. Speculation about Clinton has dismayed some liberal activists but has cheered some conservatives such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and editor William Kristol of the Weekly Standard.
Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, and despite pressure, she never said during the primary campaign that she regretted that vote. She also favored legislation last year to support the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, another decision that pleased conservatives.
In a move to advance her candidacy, Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, has agreed to take steps to avoid conflicts of interest posed by his far-flung financial dealings, Democrats close to the discussions said Wednesday.
Bill Clinton has agreed to check with the Obama administration before giving a paid speech. He also has agreed to disclose the sources of new contributions to his charitable enterprise, the William J. Clinton Foundation, those close to the matter said on condition of anonymity.
He also is trying to devise a way to share the identity of past donors, a touchy matter because some contributors do not want their identities divulged, said one Democrat.
Knowledgeable Democrats say that Gates is under consideration to remain in his post for at least several months even though he frequently has said he wants to return to private life when the Bush administration leaves office.
Activists note that Vice President-elect Joe Biden, also expected to be a leading voice in the new administration's foreign policy, voted for the 2002 war resolution.
Another possible contender for the diplomatic post, former U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke, also backed the Iraq invasion.
Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."
"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."
Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.
"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
Peace Action urged in a letter for its members to speak up because "we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq."
Despite concerns, some groups are trying to remain conciliatory.
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton's views "very troubling," Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.
"I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he's going to assemble a team that's committed to that goal," Andrews said.
Obama campaigned on a promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, or roughly one brigade a month.
Since winning the White House, Obama has affirmed his pledge to remove the troops but has left himself some flexibility on the withdrawal timetable.
In an appearance on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Obama promised a troop pullback but described it in broad terms.
"I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops," the president-elect said.
Richter is a writer in our Washington bureau.
124 Comments so far
Show AllThe American people should know that George W. Bush is not only a war criminal: he is also a hate-crime criminal.
George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.
“What did you think of that NAACP anti-Bush race-baiting ad in 2000? You know, the one that practically said Bush was responsible for the dragging-to-death-behind-a-truck murder of a black man just because he didn’t sign a hate crimes bill several years after the man’s death” (Posted by Aaron. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from metafilter.com).
ON THE TOPIC OF HATE CRIME(S):
“Sean Penn accuses Bush of ‘criminal negligence’” (Retrieved December 11, 2008, from deadlykatrina.com). Thus, Sean Penn believes that George W. Bush was at fault, criminally, relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina.
“Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn’t, Bush’s response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina’s, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency’s performance.”
Jacob Weisberg. (2005, September 7). An Imperfect Storm . . . How race shaped Bush’s response to Katrina. Slate. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from slate.com
Assuming that George W. Bush had in fact been criminally negligent relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina, would Bush be responsible for hate crime?
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger[,] [an African-American woman,] in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from leolaforussenate.blogspot.com).
Does George W. Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger constitute a hate crime?
“A woman in Texas who filed a lawsuit against the president for rape and torture[,] [Margie Schoedinger,] was found shot to death. It was ruled a suicide. No one is investigating. Bush reportedly dated the woman in high school and speculation is that he was using the woman as his sex slave because he is above the law” (John Kaminski (author of “America’s Autopsy Report,” a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world). (No date listed). Why We Need Martial Law . . . Criminal government is destroying America; military must step in to restore Constitution. serendipity.li. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from serendipity.li).
Do George W. Bush’s rape and torture of Margie Schoedinger constitute hate crimes?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates black people. Through secret government machinations, he caused Hurricane Katrina to form and aimed it at New Orleans on purpose, just so he could wipe out lots of poor blacks. I also believe that before the hurricane hit, he snuck into New Orleans and stole the keys to every school bus in the city to make evacuation of poor people impossible” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
If George W. Bush intentionally did what Janet M. Stroble indicated, would Bush have committed hate crimes against countless black people?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates Moslems. All that garbage about freedom, democracy, and the right to vote is a pollution of their culture. I believe that George W. Bush hates immigrants. There were a lot of immigrants working in the World Trade Center and George W. Bush didn’t warn them ahead of time” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
In that George W. Bush hates immigrants and deliberately failed to warn them ahead of time as indicated by Janet M. Stroble: would Bush accordingly be responsible for hate crimes relative to racial minorities who were harmed?
“Did Kanye West[’]s [comment], [‘]George Bush Hates Black People[’][,] get his mother killed?” (Retrieved October 18, 2008, from abovetopsecret.com).
There is a discussion at abovetopsecret.com relating to whether President George W. Bush murdered Kanye West’s mother—Ms. Donda West.
Did President George W. Bush, who hates black people, murder Kanye West’s mother in the heat of raging racism? Somebody indicated that although the president of the United States is monitored by the Secret Service, he certainly can meet with one or more persons where his conversations are not intercepted and secretly “order a hit” on someone or order the murder of someone.
If George W. Bush did murder Kanye West’s mother, would it constitute a hate crime?
GEORGE W. BUSH MURDERED A JEW!
“George W. Bush murdered the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com). This Internet site has a lot of information indicating that George W. Bush murdered Wellstone.
“Bush’s visit to Israel is under the guise of Middle East peace. You gotta be kidding me! Bush is THE MASTER ARCHITECT of Middle East war, not peace. . . . Bush didn’t go to Israel because he likes Israelis or like Jews, nope, he went there because he hates them. He went there to spread his message of doom, war, pain and death” (Storm Bear. (2008, January 10). PROOF: George W Bush Is An Anti-Semite! bitsofnews.com. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from bitsofnews.com).
Assuming that George W. Bush did in fact murder the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone, would Bush have committed a hate crime? Bush would have “purposefully” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone. Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also died in the plane crash. Bush would have “knowingly” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone’s wife and daughter. However, would Bush’s murders of Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also have constituted hate crimes?
Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-did-you-think-of-that-naacp-anti.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Monday, November 10, 2008
Andrew Yu-Jen Wang for months had strongly rooted for Barack Obama over John McCain. However, in the end, Andrew Yu-Jen Wang voted for Ralph Nader only as a symbolic gesture because Andrew Yu-Jen Wang expects to be immensely disappointed by Barack Obama who Andrew Yu-Jen Wang assumes will not rigorously make arrangements or seek to have George W. Bush prosecuted—the most horrifying omission of action imaginable.
However, Andrew Yu-Jen Wang acknowledges that it is a hell of a lot better to have Barack Obama as President of the United States than John McCain.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Posted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang at 6:56 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/andrew-yu-jen-wang-for-months-had.html
And so Andrew Yu-Jen Wang did not vote for Barack Obama where Wang strongly suspected that Obama would not really go all out to cause George W. Bush to be incarcerated for his heinous crimes. This omission of action of Obama would be shocking to the conscience. It would be the saddest thing. It would demoralize the American people. It would break the heart of the American people. And so Wang just did not want to make a fool of himself by investing himself in Obama through casting a vote for Obama only then to be mortified and let down by Obama not embarking on a mission to incarcerate the absolutely evil career criminal—George W. Bush.
After George W. Bush leaves office, one of the most important things is for his incarceration to be sought by the American people. If Obama were not prepared to fight diligently for such a thing, then Obama would, in a way, have wasted his time as the President of the United States. Moreover, Obama must be aware of George W. Bush’s various onslaughts against black people. Please read all about it in the blog of Wang (http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/). Thus, if Obama does not have the indignation and rage to seek Bush’s incarceration, one must conclude only that Obama lacks the courage to do it. In failing to seek Bush’s incarceration, Obama—a black person—inevitably shames and humiliates and embarrasses himself.
Obama—a black person (a racial minority himself)—should be profoundly sensitive to the racial prejudice and widespread suffering Bush has inflicted against black people.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/electing-barack-obama-president-was.html
This just in: water is wet.
Spokesmen for the progressive community are said to be "disappointed" at the news.
.Welcome back, Professor, you have been missed.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thank you, ardee. I'll have to take another break in December as final exams and projects come up, but for now your kind word made my afternoon.
.Your praise is well deserved, sir. Now that you are here I can leave for my annual Thanksgiving week salmon and steelhead trip knowing this forum has an articulate spokesperson for sanity.
See you late in the week....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I had such high hopes but I did not support Obama because I thought he was going to recreate the Clinton administration. And if Kristol approves of a single move Obama makes, then they are the wrong moves. Soothing the neocons is even worse than recreating the Clinton years. Every single move the neocons made was destructive and wrong. Our best road map is to handle every situation exactly the opposite of how they would handle it -- not to compromise with them so our policies will only be partially disastrous.
Disappointed.
Even despite the fact I was against the wars before he ever invaded either country. I can understand why a lot of lawmakers voted for it at the time. Based on the information they were given at the moment, which was based on fabricated information. I can overlook most of them having voted for it. Considering the mood of the country at that time, I can understand why a lot of them voted for it. Most people were in the war mood and would not be deterred from it. Because if people will remember back, Bush was pushing the Saddam Hussein and 9/11 connection to the hilt. There are still a lot of people in this country who believe that lie and there is no telling them different. Anyone who was anti-war like I was were called names. I was against it because Bush's facts did not add up then. I knew he was lying through his teeth. But, no one around me would listen including my own sister. But, that's beside the point now. For any lawmaker to vote against it at the time was in most cases going to be the 'kiss of death' for reelection. They were called 'un-American', not patriotic enough and aiding and abetting terrorists by Republican's and Bush. So for most lawmakers to go against the public flow would have no doubt brought down most of their wrath. So, as I said before, I can overlook the fact that they voted for war in Iraq. But, the bottom line here lawmakers go with the mood of the country most of the time. I see the American public to be more at blame here than Senator's who voted for it. If they would have checked information (I did) that was out there and available at the time they should have known Bush was lying about the need for war!
tumblewind,
You state:
So for most lawmakers to go against the public flow would have no doubt brought down most of their wrath.
Actually, if you'll recall just before the invasion of Iraq, over 15 million people demonstrated in one day (setting a world-wide record) against the war. Calls to congress very heavily opposed the war (something like 90 / 10 against as I recall anecdotally). The public did not support this war. Please don't submit to or engage in revisionist history.
Facts and information? Reason and truth? Pleeeze! Those are for dreamers! This is the real world where all you got are radical beliefs, myopic views, and economic persuasion! Live in the real world, brother!
Hahahaha, yep, I just keep hitting my head against that wall. Surely facts, reason, truth will prevail??
Actually due to the science of advertising and media conglomeration, public opinion is shaped in smoke-filled rooms in downtown Manhattan, I suppose. How did you like that media barrage "support the wall street bailout OR you will lose your job and your home"? It was intense - and apparently effective.
Tanstaafl.
Well, at least I can say, "I voted for Nader."
Me too and eventually those who blame Ralph for the demise of wuss-bags Gore and Kerry's candidacies may just finally "get it"--but so what, we got Barack and now we have to see what chance trhere is, if any, to make lemonade out of this lemon.
Poet
I'm glad I voted against Obama and McCain.
Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss.
ON THE 'PUSHING' OBAMA QUESTION
Since the election, many have written that it will require a progressive grassroots movement to move Obama left.
As a practical matter, it is a question of moving the existing Obama movements that support him to the left.
As a practical matter, the problem with this strategy is how to get groups that supported Obama to be critical of him and push him. As Peace Action's Kevin Martin said above, "public euphoria over Obama's historic victory" and "Obama hero worship" makes his group "walk this line where we can't directly criticize him."
Peace Action's agenda focuses on foreign policy; it will be interesting to see how ACORN - the poor people's urban group that got behind Obama to register voters - will react. ACORN focuses on domestic social and economic justice issues. Whether they are willing to become critics and demand progressive domestic legislation from him may suggest whether any movement to push Obama is likely.
So by now most progressives are left with the faint hope that Barack Obama is a Democratic Nixon who went to China and opened diplomatic relations with that country, created the EPA, OSHA, and signed off on much other constructive legislation to the total consternation of the regressive faction of the Republican party.
Failng that, we must hope that Obama will become transformed (as did JFK) by the overwhelming reality of the destructive power he commands and seek to moderate its influence. If so we must also hope and pray that he doesn't have a similar demise at the hands of the national security state as did JFK.
Poet
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA
Maybe it wont take until February '09 before liberals and progressives realize there is still an opposition party in the White House and in control of Congress. Of course it wont make any difference, by the time the next nominating process starts up, they'll buy what ever bill of goods the party bosses are peddling. Dumbasses.
It's noteworthy that the Los Angeles Times (now owned by the conservative Chicago Tribune) would publish an article like this one AFTER the election.
There were plenty of strong indications before the election that Obama wasn't an antiwar candidate at all. He voted to fund all of the wars as a senator, despite his one-time "antiwar" speech. He had a militarist hawk like Zbigniew Brezinsky advising him on foreign policy. Obama talked about Iraq withdrawal, but never would lay out a time table. He said he'd follow the advice of Bush's generals on the ground, opening up a huge loophole.
The inclusion of the Clintonites is no surprise. The Times should be accurate, though, and describe these folks as right wingers, not centrists.
The Bill Clinton administration was a right-wing regime: it ended welfare, ushered in NAFTA, bombed Yugoslavia, the Sudan and Iraq. With Clinton came the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council - the right wing of the Democratic Party. The DLCers cultivate the corporate agenda and corporate cash donations. They are fascists, literally - much like Republicans.
It's high time to stop smoking the hope. It's time for those who believed in the theory that Obama can be pushed to the left to start their pushing. Progressives will be right behind you. Join us when you grow weary and the hope wears thin. We've all been there.
-TIA
snydly
Somehow, there must be a way to distinguish between the different "America"s.
We have terms like---wrap themselves in the flag---military-industrial-complex---the real America---etc. It's plain that most of the actions and results seen at the output side of "America" have been what one might expect from a global-capitalist-militarist-empire totally coopted by corporate commercial interests. Yet there still exists the ideal, the myth, and, occasionally, the reality of an "America" of people who are just like others in the world who share or hope for the ideals and principles of the Constitution, too.
Lots of cognitive dissonance around all this.
We are certainly at a make-or-break point in human evolution. Population, climate, and war. Seems that if we could solve the war thing, we'd have a chance at the others.
Obviously, if war could bring us peace, we would have it by now. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that do war. Is the short-fall with those who drive us to war, or those who let themselves be driven or tricked into war? Is war the result of the billions of small decisions we all make every day? Do we "make" war like one "makes" a cake?---the ingredients determining the product? If so, how do we get a different recipe, say, to "make" peace, to give ourselves a chance to become a successful species?
Bringing this down to the present moment, we see that, from 1/20/09, a majority want to "make" our nation and world from a different recipe---the recipe that results in Peace. The leader and the team we have just elected need to show us, not TELL us, how they will make a different cake from the same ingredients.
We have RENTED them our power. We want a different cake for ourselves and everyone else our nation affects. We hope they understand that. Time is short.
It seems like as much as Barack Obama said he would be to the left he is now getting to the right. It seems like it was all a scripted play. Maybe another Republican could not win because they had been so bad, but close is ok. aj
I read in the records of all books before Barak in the elections and schemes countries neighboring Iraq. Also, the American people did not know that a terrorist group from the Governments that entice bin Laden and his aides impose terrorism to the American people, and security. And does not want for Iraq liberty and security.>
GO _ Hawkish Obama Cabinet 'Concerns' Anti-War Groups
http://coxnews.stumbleupon.com/archive/60/
Important note. Hezbollah and the current government Syrian and Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite oppose the security agreement in order to violate Iraq's security plans to undermine security in drug smuggling which is the source of financing terrorism because it does not place them in societies and civilizations which are protected by the Constitution
There will be no change with Obama. That was just a con to win the election. We saw what he did the day after gaining the nomination licking the boots of AIPAC. No one who stood for anything would have conducted themselves in this way.
People will need to take to the streets in large numbers although I believe it is already too late.
It will be painful to watch it all unravel as I would prefer a Republican in the white house that a turncoat judice. Thankfull the USA will be bankrupted soon enough for them to be reigned in by other circumstances.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – Do you know where these words originate?
It’s not perversion, free everything and guaranteed happiness.
Though this country is not perfect, anyone that is willing to work hard and show a little incentive can have a decent life. Those of you that expect everything to be given to you while you offer nothing in return disgust me. If you want more get off of your lazy behind and do more than bask in your ignorance and slovenliness. Start by teaching your children morals. Only those of you that defend people like this disgust me more. A good life and prosperity to some degree are available to the vast majority of people that will make an effort. Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed, except this fact, if you chose socialism or communism you condemn an even larger portion of the population to mediocrity or even worse. Why can’t you people get this fact! Socialism works nowhere that it is present! When you feed mediocrity that is what you get. We now have a coalition of losers and those that defend losers large enough to elect a president that will cater to them. As far as the defense of the country is concerned, you must be totally naïve if you believe we don not need a strong military. Your stupidity is laughable. As for Iraq lets get the facts straight Hussein was given an order to comply with unlimited inspections for WMD’s. If you are an idiot you believe he was not developing them. To keep a totally evil dictator with no moral conscience from possessing and using WMDs, he was over thrown. Since the gutless and corrupt U.N. would not do it, America and a few allies made the decision to do what had to be done. War is a terrible thing, but the results of not standing up to tyranny are even worse. What would have happened to South Korea if we had not defended them? Millions of people have starved to death in North Korea. If we had let South Korea fall do you think they would have been any better off? Surely your are not that stupid. After we pulled out of Vietnam more than 2.5 million people were killed in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. If we had fought an all out war against North Vietnam and defeated them this would not have happened. Yet the antiwar protestors were so proud. If you do not think this is true you need to study the political upheaval in the region and occurred after we left. As for those of you that believe that the Muslims will someday make piece with the Jews if the Jews make enough concessions, you are ignorant to say the least. There will never be peace between the Jews and Muslims or the Muslims and anyone else for that matter. The Muslims are a creeping infection creating violence and destruction in ever-increasing levels as their population increases.
As for Obama, he is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by the Democratic Party, a party with no morals or ethics. Now lets sum up Michelle Obama, she has never been proud of America because she identifies and blames whites for the lack of morals, ethics and motivation a large portion of the black race writhe in. Maybe when Obama's Grandmother saw the black man on the street approaching her and became afraid, Obama should have asked what was wrong with the black race and not what was wrong with his grandmother.
Please crawl back into your cave WillH. Your stupidity and lack of historical knowledge would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
I'll only point to one of the many ludicrous and totally inaccurate points you make.
>>After we pulled out of Vietnam more than 2.5 million people were killed in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. If we had fought an all out war against North Vietnam and defeated them this would not have happened.
We didn't fight an "all out war?" Really? Are you that stupid?
We dropped more tons of bombs on that tiny piece or real estate than all of the bombs that were dropped during WWII. But maybe that wasn't total war for your puny brain either.
The people that perished during that conflict died because of our invasion of their country. That's right....we invaded South Vietnam, threw democracy out the window and propped up totally corrupt regimes to do our bidding.
The deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were the result of our invasion, not events that occurred because we didn't fight an "all-out" war.
I know you will not listen to this, because any moron I've ever encountered who pens such gibberish as "Muslims are a creeping infection" and Saddam was "developing WMD's" is clearly under the influence of the idiot box...otherwise known as television.
Take your idiocy, your racist diatribes and your ignorance back to your cave, trailer or RV. Please.
I'll be thinking about your passionate prose next time I drive through the many shantytowns of America. The ones with the trailer parks and the many rusty cars in the yard.
Or when I see the miles-long rows of pawnshops when exiting Birmingham, Alabama.
A sure sign of people who are in dire straits.
Or when I visit my American friends who are chronically ill and should desperately have seen a doctor ages ago but can't afford one.
What is wrong with America's blacks is that they have never gone on strike. For a long time.
.Bravo!!!
I didnt think it possible, but someone actually out "JoeHoped" Joe Hope.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – Do you know where these words originate?
It’s not perversion, free everything and guaranteed happiness.
Though this country is not perfect, anyone that is willing to work hard and show a little incentive can have a decent life. Those of you that expect everything to be given to you while you offer nothing in return disgust me. If you want more get off of your lazy behind and do more than bask in your ignorance and slovenliness. Start by teaching your children morals. Only those of you that defend people like this disgust me more. A good life and prosperity to some degree are available to the vast majority of people that will make an effort. Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed, except this fact, if you chose socialism or communism you condemn an even larger portion of the population to mediocrity or even worse. Why can’t you people get this fact! Socialism works nowhere that it is present! When you feed mediocrity that is what you get. We now have a coalition of losers and those that defend losers large enough to elect a president that will cater to them. As far as the defense of the country is concerned, you must be totally naïve if you believe we don not need a strong military. Your stupidity is laughable. As for Iraq lets get the facts straight Hussein was given an order to comply with unlimited inspections for WMD’s. If you are an idiot you believe he was not developing them. To keep a totally evil dictator with no moral conscience from possessing and using WMDs, he was over thrown. Since the gutless and corrupt U.N. would not do it, America and a few allies made the decision to do what had to be done. War is a terrible thing, but the results of not standing up to tyranny are even worse. What would have happened to South Korea if we had not defended them? Millions of people have starved to death in North Korea. If we had let South Korea fall do you think they would have been any better off? Surely your are not that stupid. After we pulled out of Vietnam more than 2.5 million people were killed in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. If we had fought an all out war against North Vietnam and defeated them this would not have happened. Yet the antiwar protestors were so proud. If you do not think this is true you need to study the political upheaval in the region and occurred after we left. As for those of you that believe that the Muslims will someday make piece with the Jews if the Jews make enough concessions, you are ignorant to say the least. There will never be peace between the Jews and Muslims or the Muslims and anyone else for that matter. The Muslims are a creeping infection creating violence and destruction in ever-increasing levels as their population increases.
As for Obama, he is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by the Democratic Party, a party with no morals or ethics. Now lets sum up Michelle Obama, she has never been proud of America because she identifies and blames whites for the lack of morals, ethics and motivation a large portion of the black race writhe in. Maybe when Obama's Grandmother saw the black man on the street approaching her and became afraid, Obama should have asked what was wrong with the black race and not what was wrong with his grandmother.
DUH!
Like lynne (Nov. 20 @ 7:00pm) I too voted for McKinney, and was/am frustrated and confused by self-referential "progressives" more wedded to the (D) party than to ANY progressive cause/issue. Face it: regardless of the issue, Obama falls squarely center-right. Palestinian rights. Cuba. Coal. Nuclear. Wall Street welfare. FISA. Afghanistan. War on drugs. Patriot Act. blah blah blech!
We went from "change we can believe in" to "a smooth transition." Smooth transition?! That's code for Wall Street meaning more of the same. And for brokers too stupid to read between the lines, Larry "Girls-Are-Too-Stoopid-to-be-Scientists" Summers' (yet another Clintonista) name as possible Treasury Secretary sends a VERY clear message! Kinda makes you wonder who actually won the (D) primary after all, doesn't it?
So, Lieberman keeps his important chair, Leahy waves away any possibility that Bushites may face justice or be called to account for criminal activity. On it goes. Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid are voted back into power. Cripes!
And the Obama people kept telling me that once he was elected, we would be able to apply leverage. And I told them they were deluding themselves. Get back to me when people like Kucinich or Nader are named as candidates for cabinet positions.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
You mean the Obama- Christ has been sent by God to save capitalism and not our sorry asses? Say it ain't so, ye of little faith.
The Blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Obama are in for a major surprise.
They might just as well join the army now, at least they dodge a bullet there
Looks like Barack OClinton wants to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Makes one wonder what he meant by change? Maybe they mean to reupholster the White House furniture, change a few drapes and carpet their living room.
I voted for McKinney. Was a progressive Democrat, however, Obama has thrown progressives under the bus over and over again ever since and before he was elected. Why do progressives continue to support him? He's a corporate guy. I wait to see what these "changes" are going to be. I am so tired of protesting the war. No one is listening.
One of Obama's "goals" is to involve the EU more in our militarism around the world. According to him, they should be playing a "more active role." How do you think that is going to go over? The EU is already pissed off because they took 8 years of ridicule for their more or less non-aggressive (or at least not as aggressive as ours) military positions from the Bush administration. They were spit on by us for 8 years.
It just sickens me to think that Obama is going to start strong-arming these nations into joining us in using more military force for resource acquisition and geopolitical gain.
I guess more Afghanis are going to have to be prepared to die. I don't think most people around the world would rejoice today at this criminal line-up of cabinet members like they were rejoicing on the night of November 4.
There must be much disillusionmet among these volunteers who worked for Obama. Here's my response to that: You folks won it - you work it. This is the guy you went to bat for, knowing full well he was going to let the Bush administration off the hook with his vote for FISA. Knowing full well he despised single payer health insurance. Knowing full well he was going to bomb more innocent civilians.
You won it - you work it. Hit the streets, people. Your guy is selling all of us down the river, this "messiah" that you all voted for.
I haven't read any of the other posts yet. But my knee-jerk reaction was: Indeed!
I'd for example claim that at least 70% of America's problems around the world directly or indirectly derive from being unequivocally supportive of the Israeli right wing, if you think about it. They are actively supporting the Israeli version of Rove-style politics.
There is a left wing as well in Israel, mind you, and there are tons of American Jews who have always been opposing this laissez-faire attitude towards an extremely jingoist right wing Israeli policy, aka in America (wrongly, IMO) as "supporting Israel".
I am not a Jew, and I am European on top of it, but what I witnessed during the 1980s just in the West Bank would have made me a Palestinian radical, thank you very much. ANYBODY who would have seen how Israelis treat Arabs would have reacted like that. Really, ANYBODY.
I guess that the 1980s nowadays would be considered a Golden Age on the West Bank by comparison to what has happened there since, though, from what I hear and read.
Appointing Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff was a hugely distressing sign, as a consequence. It means that he will be the gatekeeper when it comes to who can have a talk with Obama.
But solving the Middle East quagmire has to be a cornerstone of America's foreign policy! Without it, you can just forget everything else!! You'd just be feeding the disenchanted youths from Istanbul to Kuala Lumpur! And you'd be abetting their signing up with the Muslim radicals of this world.
Obama's other picks have only confirmed something I hate to repeat but which is the chant the GOP used during the campaign: Who is he? What does he really stand for?
Is it maybe really just about becoming President?
Obama amd Biden were elected because they said they would end the war when they got into office.
Now Obama dodges the question of when by saying he will confer with the Joint Chiefs to find out what to do.
I don't call that leadership. I call that politics, period.
Hillary will do what she's told. She only voted to authorize the war and said all that s__t so the neocon propaganda machine wouldn't turn her into a "freedom fry". Get her away from whoring for votes, and she might do some good, and she won't want to get fired.
I would prefer someone with a little character and conviction, however.
Maybe Obama wants her out of the senate so he can get something done.
I just don't like her in that post. I like her just where she is, unless it would be the Supreme Court.
There is some sense to the Rivals business, and the sequence of filling posts is also important. He doesn't really need to preach to the choir just now, and in the face of the evil chaos in Iraq, he has to at least show he has the potential for bark. There's just more Reverse Polish Logic in filling Cabinet posts than can be sorted out at this point. Besides, its who's in the kitchen that really counts. The Cabinet members are more like formal administrators.
Note to all who supported Nader and the Greens: it seems like you really told us so.
Only time will tell.
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
Matt Gonzalez said in one of his final speeches or papers before November 4, "What do you have to do not to vote for them?"
Honest to god, people, this isn't fool me twice, shame on me. This is insanity. Stop voting for war machine parties!
Jesus, it's not rocket science, folks. Everything about Obama was out on the table before he was even nominated. His FISA vote should have been a HUGE - and I mean HUGE - clue. That vote was a signal to the Bush administration that there would be no criminal prosecutions for their war crimes.
I project that Obama becomes a war criminal within a week of taking office. He has to close down Gitmo immediately, and he has to close down these black sites around the world where we are practicing extraordinary rendition and sending people into black holes and "disappearing" them to be tortured away from prying eyes.
This won't be a third Clinton term. It'll be a third Bush term.
Obama is to the right of Nixon, for pete sake.
Ho-hum, nothing new here--Obama is the good cop to Bush's cop. And sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But we're in a new ballgame here: the empire is over!
Our empire is broke, the spirit is lacking, the oil is peaking and the leadership is truly Roman.
Time to sit back and relax and enjoy the aftermath of empire--quiet nights at home, no running off to invade and torture, no more ponzi scheming, alchemisty whiz kids on Wall Street turning toxic mortgages into gold--now we can go quietly into the night and be like other post empire countries--Spain, Britain and Holland.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Well put.
That's why I'm not getting my knickers in a bunch over whether a Democrat or a Green or a Plutonian won the election. The system is broken and only 300 million little actions will fix it.
If we don't, we don't.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Sioux Rose
DR WU: Creatively apt and well put.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers!
Dr Wu, do you think there might be room at the top for one small big-time thinker like me?
I'd appreciate your advice.
www.dangerouscreation.com
I was bored with this election over 40 years ago. Trust a politician? Trust a politician who may have ties to the New World Oder seeing how many leaders of nations have called for the nwo & a financial nwo?
Paulson: crisis happens once or twice in 100 years
Dow 7,553.56 down -5.27%
We might be reduced to dropping IOUs on the 'enemy'
The population of the planet increases at three people per second. Resources are running out.
How else do you get what's left besides using the largest military ever assembled.
But as many have pointed out on here. The USA is BROKE.
Will China pick up the tab...again?
Uh.... looks like the sun also sets on the mighty dragon, since they too live on this finite planet.
Do people stop breeding so many damn kids in the meantime?
Hell no. No they blame homosexuals for the evils of the world and then go back to shopping and praying to god the war and famine don't hit them and their families.
That may be a bit simplistic. Most industrialized countries have a relatively low population growth. And though some homosexuals might like to think their agenda is the most important thing to people, it's not, especially now with the economy tanking. Probably the most important thing to them is finding and/or keeping a job now. On the other hand, they may have more time to listen to Rush Limbaugh. :D
What sort of people did you expect to be nominated to run a barbaric empire, folks that are civilized?
Jeevee
Did any of you guys see NOVA's documentary this week? It sure pointed out the old lesson: "Those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them". Why don't we learn them? The insanity of G R E E D.
There is an old saying that you're known by the company you keep!
Just in case Obama reveals himself as a closet warmonger, let's hope America goes bankrupt before it and/or Israel drags the world into another round of futile, imperialist wars.
And what about the voices of the American people? Why aren't they out in the streets marching and making their thoughts clear while Obama is setting up his Administration. It's not much use protesting after the horse has bolted, is it?
The world will never have peace while America exists!
www.dangerouscreation.com
[The world will never have peace while America exists!]
Somehow, there must be a way to distinguish between the different "America"s.
We have terms like---wrap themselves in the flag---military-industrial-complex---the real America---etc. It's plain that most of the actions and results seen at the output side of "America" have been what one might expect from a global-capitalist-militarist-empire totally coopted by corporate commercial interests. Yet there still exists the ideal, the myth, and, occasionally, the reality of an "America" of people who are just like others in the world who share or hope for the ideals and principles of the Constitution, too.
Lots of cognitive dissonance around all this.
We are certainly at a make-or-break point in human evolution. Population, climate, and war. Seems that if we could solve the war thing, we'd have a chance at the others.
Obviously, if war could bring us peace, we would have it by now. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that do war. Is the short-fall with those who drive us to war, or those who let themselves be driven or tricked into war? Is war the result of the billions of small decisions we all make every day? Do we "make" war like one "makes" a cake?---the ingredients determining the product? If so, how do we get a different recipe, say, to "make" peace, to give ourselves a chance to become a successful species?
Bringing this down to the present moment, we see that, from 1/20/09, a majority want to "make" our nation and world from a different recipe---the recipe that results in Peace. The leader and the team we have just elected need to show us, not TELL us, how they will make a different cake from the same ingredients.
We have RENTED them our power. We want a different cake for ourselves and everyone else our nation affects. We hope they understand that. Time is short.
I generally don't agree with the Repub's principles but at least they have some. The Dims just seem to compromise their principles time and time again.
Republican principles? Like take what you can get? Lying is only bad if you get caught at it? No accountability? Bigger is better and monopoly is best? Rob 'em blind?
What principles?
The Washington crowd likes to smile and lie while they get down with the "common folk" during the campaign. When the election is over, the promises, the hope are forgotten and they go back to Washington where their main objective is to build their careers and feather the nests of themselves and their associates. The public at large is mostly ignored after they've been used to further the agenda of the american political elite. Say, brother, can you spare a lobbyist?
Now that Obama has been elected he can show his true colors: white, white and more white.
Hoa bien
A great beginning step for peace for Obama would be to recognize the World Court.
Think of the implications.... even if Bush pardons himself it would be recognized by the world as another criminal act.
Pardons imply guilt and they have no legal standing outside the USA.
Great idea, hope it catches on.
How many more times do I have to point out that the war in Iraq became constitutionally legitimate according to a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling when Congress voted the first appropriation specifically for this war. That ruling may have been unwise but it is the law of the land.
Since Senator Obama has also voted for the specific funding of that war he accepted the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Whatever he said afterward was evasive grandstanding. He is just as responsible for the war as Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this issue is that Rep. Kucinic, who never voted funds for the war in Iraq, was one of several congressmen who brought the suit in the Supreme Court against President Clinton in 1990. Clinton had started bombing Serbia without a Congressional declaration of war. The Supreme Court ruled that the first appropriation for that war was the equivalent of a Congressional Declaration of War. Why did Dennis never mention this during the recent debates?
Kelly Dougherty obviously does not know what he is talking about.
The question whether the invasion of Iraq was or was not legitimate must be ruled in the contexts of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions on Warfare.
Totally confused.
"Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this issue is that Rep. Kucinic, who never voted funds for the war in Iraq, was one of several congressmen who brought the suit in the Supreme Court against President Clinton in 1990."
A few rather large problems, here:
1) Clinton took office in Jan., 1993, and wasn't the President in 1990, so no such suit could be brought against him at the time.
2) Dennis Kucinich wasn't in the House of Representatives in 1990--he wouldn't be elected to that body until six years after that.
Oops, typo! You are correct. The year was 1999. The case is known as Campbell vs. Clinton. Kucinich was one of 17 co-signers. Obama is still a co-financier of the war in Iraq hence according to Campbell vs. Clinton the war there is constitutionally legal. Bush may have violated the War Powers Act initially. However, after the first monetary installment that became moot. Does this remove the "rather large problems"?
Obama and Co. continues to play good cop to Bush's bad cop. Take to the streets, irregulars! At empire's end it's time to go quietly into the night.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Biden said that when Obama gets in there would be something that the whole world would regard as wrong for the US to do, but that the demo base had to support them.
Every president has to create its own war.
It may not be enough for Obama to inherit the wars of Bush. he has to put his stamp on it.
I think Dennis Kucinich would be a great choice for Secretary of State.
But, short of that, Hillary Clinton is the most dovish of the more prominent names that have been mentioned. She is more dovish than Obama himself, so her selection represents a move to the Left from his Centrist-Right voting record in the Senate . . . and that's a good thing.
Yes, Clinton infamously voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 (as did 77 of 100 Senators), but she has since switched sides.
She voted (with just 27 other Senators) for the Feingold-Reid Amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, requiring redeployment of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. (Obama didn't cast a vote.)
She also voted (again, with just 27 other Senators) against FISA, the noxious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Obama voted for it.)
She also co-sponsored Senator Bernard Sanders' very dovish bill (S. 2398) banning use of U.S. mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Obama opposed it.)
While Clinton is no Dennis Kucinich, her recent voting record shows she is closer to his positions than is Obama.
"I think Dennis Kucinich would be a great choice for Secretary of State."
Kucinich has been actively promoting the Dept. of Peace. I think he'd be a shoe-in for its first Secretary.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Naturally sayeth:
"She [Hillary Clinton] voted (with just 27 other Senators) for the Feingold-Reid Amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, requiring redeployment of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. (Obama didn't cast a vote.)"
False. Obama not only voted in favor of Feingold-Reid, he offered his own redeployment amendment, as well (both failed to pass).
Hillary The Peacenik has already voted for war with Iran, as well. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, and that's what it was.
Well that's an interesting "fact." Unfortunately, the official voting records of the U.S. Senate disagree with you. Obama chose not to vote on the Feingold-Reid amendment, just as I said. Clinton voted for it, just as I said.
And by the way, Feingold-Reid was the only vote ever taken in the U.S. Senate on a law that would have REQUIRED the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (And wouldn't it be nice if we could have had all combat troops out of Iraq by last June 30?) Who's the real dove; the person who voted for that bill or the person who chose not to vote?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vo...
"Well that's an interesting 'fact.' Unfortunately, the official voting records of the U.S. Senate disagree with you."
No, they don't. It's just that I know what part of the Senate record to properly reference, and you don't.
"Obama chose not to vote on the Feingold-Reid amendment, just as I said. Clinton voted for it, just as I said."
No.
"And by the way, Feingold-Reid was the only vote ever taken in the U.S. Senate on a law that would have REQUIRED the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (And wouldn't it be nice if we could have had all combat troops out of Iraq by last June 30?) Who's the real dove; the person who voted for that bill or the person who chose not to vote?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vo... "
What you've referenced, there, is a weakened version of Feingold-Reid that removed most of the restrictions you're so loudly talking up. It was taken up in Oct., 2007, long after the original amendment had failed. Here's Russ Feingold, during the debate on it:
"The new amendment only covers funds in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill, and it omits the first two sections of the old Feingold-Reid amendment which required the President to transition the mission and to begin redeployment within 90 days. In addition, the exceptions for operations against al-Qaida and for training the ISF are less detailed and restrictive than they were before. But the intent is the same."
The amendment, by that time, was being gutted in order to try to draw more votes.
The vote on the actual full-strength Feingold-Reid (S. 1098) happened in May, 2007:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vo...
Obama voted in favor of that, exactly as I said. Here's his statement in support of the amendment, and his comments about his own redeployment plan he introduced:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070515-obama_statement_57/
Thanks for bringing some actual facts to the conversation.
If I have this correct, it appears that both Clinton and Obama voted for the earlier, stronger version of Feingold-Reid. And, Clinton also voted for the later, weaker version of Feingold-Reid --- which had a greater chance of passing, which still required withdrawal of all combat troops by June 30, 2008, and of which Senator Feingold said "the intent is the same" --- but Obama did not.
Furthermore, Obama introduced his own amendment (without majority leader Reid's name attached to it, a freshman Senator's bill has little hope of passing) which was even weaker than the later version of Feingold-Reid, because it eliminated the "requirement" part of the bill.
While I appreciate your contribution, it appears you're drawing a "distinction without a difference." If Obama had really wanted Feingold-Reid to pass, he would have supported it and voted for it (in it's final version). Instead, he undercut it with his weaker bill, and then declined to cast a vote on it.
"If I have this correct, it appears that both Clinton and Obama voted for the earlier, stronger version of Feingold-Reid."
Bingo. After it failed, its authors set about gutting it.
"And, Clinton also voted for the later, weaker version of Feingold-Reid --- which had a greater chance of passing"
Wrong again. The difference between the two versions was one vote; if you'll check those links I provided, you'll see that the stronger version got one more "yea" than the weaker one. Neither even came close to passing.
"Furthermore, Obama introduced his own amendment (without majority leader Reid's name attached to it, a freshman Senator's bill has little hope of passing) which was even weaker than the later version of Feingold-Reid, because it eliminated the 'requirement' part of the bill."
Obama's plan, which he'd been promoting in various forms since at least Jan. 2007 (he'd been working on arranging a withdrawal since 2005, the year he entered the Senate), was binding legislation that set benchmarks the administration would have to meet, those benchmarks based on what Bush had already said should be the benchmarks for the mission. It called for a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly endorsed Obama's approach.
I think it's clear to everyone that you are only parsing facts and have lost this argument.
Your non-denial denial of the central facts says it all:
(1) Obama did not vote for the final version of Feingold-Reid, and Clinton did.
(2) The final version of Feingold-Reid may have been weaker than the earlier version, but it still REQUIRED withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by a June 30, 2008.
(3) Obama withdrew his support for the bill, and offered his own, weaker bill --- weaker even than the final version of Feingold-Reid --- which did not require withdrawal of all combat troops, but instead left the decision-making with the president.
(4) Feingold-Reid had the imprimatur of well-respected Senator Feingold and Majority Leader Reid, and as such had much greater chance of passage than did Obama's bill, which never left committee or came to a vote.
(5) Had Obama (the supposed "anti-war" candidate) supported and voted for Feingold-Reid, it's chances for passage would have been much improved.
(6) By withdrawing support and offering his weaker bill, Obama helped to sabotage Feingold-Reid's chance of passage.
Now, having refreshed my memory and perhaps other's memories, this question comes to mind: why? Why did Obama decide to undercut Feingold-Reid's chances of becoming law?
Was it perhaps because he realized that if all U.S. combat troops were withdrawn by June 30, 2008 and Iraq quickly stabilized that the Iraq War would cease to be the most important factor in the presidential race, thus depriving him of his signature issue in the last critical months before the election?
Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked...
'Nuff said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters), April 22, 2008 - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a NUCLEAR strike against Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we WOULD BE ABLE TO totally obliterate them," she said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will DETER them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
From Wikipedia:
"Deterrence theory is a military strategy developed during the Cold War. It is especially relevant with regard to the use of nuclear weapons . . .
Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action . . .
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union . . ."
In April, Obama attacked Clinton (cynically, for political purposes) for simply stating long-standing U.S. policy. He himself takes the same position. Now, the proof is in the pudding: he picks her to be his Secretary of State.
Oh, that Hill! What a dove she is!
There's no need to get snippy--Clinton has already voted in favor of war with Iran. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which was a vote for war.
So does Obama, and almost every Senator.
Good article.
Be prepared for Irony.
Everything is on the economy now... War is expensive... War needs a bailout too while Republicans are losing money as fast as anyone.
Since the Republicans are looking for a direction now and since they are the most opposed to all of the coming bailouts, they may become more against War than the top Dems....
Now that the top Dems will be in charge of the Wars, the opposition can gain popular votes by demanding "Where is the peace"?
Wouldn't that be Ironic?
It would be great and certainly a great irony but don't expect that to happen. Beginning with Reagan, the Republicans have firmly and viciously believed that "deficits don't matter". Cheesedick Cheney told this to George Wanker Bush repeatedly. Obviously, the Republicans run into the problem of eventual destitution but when did they ever give a damn? They'll just keep doing the same ol' same ol'.
OK, but Why Not?
How about if a dedicated large group of third party activists...took over the Republican party.
The Green Republicans..... It sure would change the landscape and take the the media by surprise.
Just a thought... and I don't think I could call myself a Republican that easily. It would sure change things though.
The honeymoon is over
What honeymoon? There was no honeymoon.
Eyes wide open. This is still America, where the rich vacation in Bali and the poor stand in line for food and get evicted when they can't pay the mortgage.
Health care? Forgetaboutit!!
I always pay careful attention to writer and source of an article. This article is pretty fair. I'd also read it in conjunction with Jeremy Scahill's below, then read the transcript of today's DemocracyNow with Scahill and David Corn of the "Nation" for their counterpoint on the abovementioned concerns,names and others. Then I'd read Frances Fox Piven's article on "Obama Needs a Movement" far down on CommonDreams main page. It's not enough to just be an observer. Scahill made a great point on DemocracyNow, (paraphrase) Now is the time to fight against some of these names because once they are in positions in the new administration, it's harder to get them out. True. www.democracynow.org
abdosoliman46
I agree with you, but add we have to continue to fight no matter who is in the new cabinet. We want to end the open wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we want an end of the hidden and proxy wars in Somalia and other places in Africa. We want an end to ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and enforcements of UN resolutions that give the palestinian their national rights. In brief, we want a US leader ship based on the American constitution and the Charter of the UN. It is the progressive people's fight; with or without Obama, our hope He will meet us half way.
I hope all the people who voted for Obama as an agent of "change" are happy.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Obama could nominate people who reduce funding for the M/I/I complex and go against the Zionist money-power at his own peril.
Change may only happen if he rules by popular referendum, not by the advise of Washington insiders.
This article states:
Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate
That's certainly true. So, if America is a democracy, and if Obama was elected partly on that platform, why is he now legitimizing war?
Oh, excuse me. I forgot. It's not really a democracy, is it? Our government is really the public arm of the Milirary Industrial Complex. Our government is only there to give the appearance of democracy for those peons amongst us who cannot accept that we are really a criminal, fascist, imperial state that murders to better the interests of corporations. They placed Obama out there to yell slogans like, "Enough" and "Change" just to get suckers like you who have grown tired of Bush to keep your vote within the two-party system.
So, if you don't like it, why the heck did you vote for Obama?
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him. I voted for Nader and I'm proud of it.
Four more years...
...don't blame me I voted for Nader.