Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama's Kettle of Hawks
Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign policy. But while pundits and journalists speculate endlessly on the potential for drama with Hillary Clinton at the state department and Bill Clinton's network of shady funders, the real rivalry that will play out goes virtually unmentioned. The main battles will not be between Obama's staff, but rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy, not just a staff change in the war room.
When announcing his foreign policy team on Monday, Obama said: "I didn't go around checking their voter registration." That is a bit hard to believe, given the 63-question application to work in his White House. But Obama clearly did check their credentials, and the disturbing truth is that he liked what he saw.
The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush's time in office to the present.
Obama has dismissed suggestions that the public records of his appointees bear much relevance to future policy. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," Obama said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing." It is a line the president-elect's defenders echo often. The reality, though, is that their records do matter.
We were told repeatedly during the campaign that Obama was right on the premiere foreign policy issue of our day - the Iraq war. "Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so," Obama said in his September debate against John McCain. "Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment." What does it say that, with 130 members of the House and 23 in the Senate who voted against the war, Obama chooses to hire Democrats who made the same judgement as Bush and McCain?
On Iraq, the issue that the Obama campaign described as "the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation", Biden and Clinton not only supported the invasion, but pushed the Bush administration's propaganda and lies about Iraqi WMDs and fictitious connections to al-Qaida. Clinton and Obama's hawkish, pro-Israel chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, still refuse to renounce their votes in favour of the war. Rice, who claims she opposed the Iraq war, didn't hold elected office and was not confronted with voting for or against it. But she did publicly promote the myth of Iraq's possession of WMDs, saying in the lead up to the war that the "major threat" must "be dealt with forcefully". Rice has also been hawkish on Darfur, calling for "strik[ing] Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets".
It is also deeply telling that, of his own free will, Obama selected President Bush's choice for defence secretary, a man with a very disturbing and lengthy history at the CIA during the cold war, as his own. While General James Jones, Obama's nominee for national security adviser, reportedly opposed the Iraq invasion and is said to have stood up to the neocons in Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, he did not do so publicly when it would have carried weight. Time magazine described him as "the man who led the Marines during the run-up to the war - and failed to publicly criticise the operation's flawed planning". Moreover, Jones, who is a friend of McCain's, has said a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, "would be against our national interest".
But the problem with Obama's appointments is hardly just a matter of bad vision on Iraq. What ultimately ties Obama's team together is their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US militarism to defend the America First doctrine.
Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign."
Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for 'neoliberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neoconservativism.'" Boot's buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement, that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term."
There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team. At the same time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama's selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail, from his pledge to escalate the war in Afghanistan to his "residual force" plan in Iraq to his vow to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests to his posturing on Iran. "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel," Obama said in his famed speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last summer. "Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation."
89 Comments so far
Show AllOh, bama...So soon after your election we come to the same question we always end up asking about neocons--lying, stupid or crazy?
"If you have already taken a position regarding all this, then investigation comes to an end, does it not?"
Surely. I don't have a position, but when someone says (with certainty) we can "remember" something, then I think they are implying that we can experience "it" through some method they have discovered. This implies a specific position, even if it's vague and hazy enough to be almost undetectable. You seem to have some sort of dogma while telling others not to have one. Interesting.
"The very thing they do to 'escape from their pain' is what increases it."
That would include religious or spiritual belief, I assume ?
Thanks also for you insights Cozmo, I went back and re-read them, and really enjoyed what you had to say.
Thank you, I'm always happy when what I say actually makes sense to somebody else. ^_^
Although, I think it's telling that chessgames didn't deign to respond to me, even after I apologized and proceeded to answer his request for a specific and detail rebuttal...
Chessgame, "Breakfast in America" was the soundtrack to my senior prom experience (in fact it's in my cd player in my VW right now). Again you are talking about things that you perceive, as if they are a universal reality. It's OK to have your beliefs or perceptions, I just took issue with you asking others to remember something that is so personal to yourself. We agree on much, but not on "pull of essence" or "inner wholeness", or even "eternal present" (too much of an oxy-moron for me). These are hazy concepts which may feed us personally, but get us no closer to working as a global society (IMO, of course). Your last paragraph is exclusionary, and I would say counter-productive to what you seem to want to achieve. When I look at people, I see them as sometimes beings who need to hide in "egoic" caves, because life is hard and sad and painful, but then I see those same people as beings who are capable of great love and amazing joy. IMO, As long as we hold out carrots for others to grab (like we have some wonderful gift to share if they but listen to our wisdom) we will continue to hobble along in our separatist ways, after all they are different from us. Just my 2 cents of course.
That is fine, and that is why we must verify things for ourselves. Just be aware that all you think you know now may not be the limit of what you CAN know, and that the 5 senses along with the thoughts it stimulates might not be the whole story. The term 'eternal present' is indeed an "oxymoron" if a 'time-self' is all we have or can have. If you have already taken a position regarding all this, then investigation comes to an end, does it not?
Believe me when I say, I have no wish to convince anyone of anything but, at the same time, I will not simply unite with some cause or group for the sake of fellowship and unification. As far as 'egoic caves' go, most everyone lives inside one and suffers for that confinement while pretending, of course, that all is well. The very thing they do to 'escape from their pain' is what increases it. Of course, this is all just blather and unnecessary self-torment if nothing else is possible. On the other hand if it IS possible, what can be more important then its realization? Ultimately, all egoic pursuits lead to division and separatism. Strange, given the fact that we live in an interdependent universe.
Most often it is takes some great shock or disillusionment to shatter the illusion that our present patterns of thought-action are the correct ones, and are shocked to find that they are/were not. If you are satisfied with your life as it is, and do not feel a pull toward something 'broader,' then carry on. On the other hand, if something resonates, investigate it. Your life is entirely your responsibility as is mine. I know it is a waste of time and energy to attempt to convert anyone (to anything), and energy expended in that way is always counterproductive (how do you know you're not really converting another to your own special brand of ignorance?).
People must come to an understanding of things themselves. Agreement or disagreement is therefore irrelevant; it's only the awareness or lack thereof that counts. Sometimes the child must burn his finger on the stove or iron to know what heat means. And all genuine perception is like that. All we can do is learn from the burn--or not. :-)
sierra7
Will Obama become America's Yeltsin????
"Generally, though, on a basic level, do you not perceive an 'order,' even if it's just in physical properties and principles that enabled all life to evolve and come into being? Do we not reflect this 'intelligent' order to some degree?"
I do perceive order, but I see it more as the success of trial and error. I would like to believe there is some higher intelligence to this "order", but I don't see it. When people refer to such things, I like see if they have something new I haven't considered. We need to take care of each other, and our planet, because our success as a species depends upon it. This is not predicated by any other outside influence or "intelligence". Not that I'm saying there isn't one, but when people state conclusively that there is, I like to ask from where they derive the knowledge. I appreciate your answer, thanks.
That is the thing 6923, if this 'Intelligence' exists at all (which it does), it must be within us as well. However, if one cannot perceive it directly, it is of little value, right? And I agree, trial and error, fumbling and bumbling is a necessary step for developing anything, whether it be a new skill or the exploration of one's psyche (coming to an understanding of oneself psychologically and spiritually). Starting out on this path we must, like scientists, be willing to question personal and societal/cultural beliefs and assumptions. Self-awareness brings with it the ability to separate fact from fiction and reality from belief-based desire. Some also say that it leads you to the essence of what you truly are, which has nothing to do with what society has conditioned you to be. But only you can verify or refute this.
If essence within you has not been completely corrupted, you feel a longing, a pull toward freedom--that there must be something more than this mundane, routine existence. This feeling has always been especially strong for me when gazing upon the stars at night and, lately, when watching my young daughter frolic around the house, free to be herself (essence is much stronger in us when we are children before education, religious training, and social conditioning come in to smother it. Every heard the "The Logical Song" by Supertramp?). What happens is that in these moments you become aware of a feeling of your inner captivity and fragmentation.
Let me just say here, if you follow this 'pull of essence,' it will lead you to its fulfillment, which is inner wholeness. Clinging to any ideology and/or belief, which has its roots in the 'past' cannot but hinder one in this regard because 'real' life is something that always takes place in the here and now (eternal present), and cannot be reduced to any thought-construct, mental image, or idea.
I think that's why so few ever exit from their dark egoic cave into the freedom of essence. They are too much in love with the darkness of their contrived thought-life. And the shell of their conditioning hardens.
When is the first anti war protest against the pro war Obama Administration?
Sign me up!
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
"We often fail to see or remember that there is an 'intelligence' in the universe that governs everything, even human society."
I can't remember something I have never seen, nor been exposed to. What is it ? Are you talking about natural laws ? Your post was kind of hazy on his point. Natural laws are fairly concrete, I don't see an intelligence behind them. What is it you see ? just curious.
You must reject all ideology and subscribe to his ideology, is what he's trying to say in his self-contradictory ramblings. He's not worth your time.
No, I am not trying to say that at all. Just see what is true or false for yourself; I have no ideology to promote. If you meet the world in a static way, you meet with conflict. That is why attachment to any ideology will ultimately lead to conflict (or polarization), both within yourself and with others. Is this not as plain as a wart on a witch's nose?
CZ, I do not at all mind if you wish to refute what I post. However, please take issue directly with the substance of the post (or the lack thereof), and do not tell others to essentially disregard everything I post (He is not worth your time). This tells me that my posts arouse more than mere disagreement within you.
If you think I am promoting an ideology, cite the ideology (i.e., call me out on it). Contradictory ramblings? Elaborate. There is no need for sniping.
Sorry, I'm used to dealing with trolls and evangelists much less polite than you. There are numerous hints in your speech patterns and word choice that indicate a strong dogmatic background, especially the use of assumed knowledge where none exists (eg: the nonsensical usage of remember), and use of crystallized phrases with assumed or (or hidden implied) meaning (eg: capitalization of the Wave {seriously what the hell is that supposed to mean}). I can't call out any specific ideology/religion/spiritual tradition, but regardless of being able to identify a specific named ideology, you're using ideological rhetoric.
What differentiates your god from other religions gods and how are you certain that your experience of nature indicates your god and only your god? Moreover, you exclaim (unnecessarily and unrelatedly) the existence of an over-arching intelligence, and then describe how all we're really looking at are natural consequences. Moreover, the asleep/awake spiritual distinction you're talking about is a false dichotomy I can only assume stems from some sort of doctrine, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever with your overall message of holism. You could talk about a continuous scale of awareness, but discrete labels is anti-holistic. Also, divorcing "natural consequences" from our own actions is just plain silly. If we continue to look to nature to determine consequences, we estrange ourselves from nature. What, are we supposed to wait for a tornado to come and kill the president when god rescinds the mandate of heaven? NO! We can be the consequences. In addition, your portrayal of karma is backwards; karma is an acceptance of natural consequences much in the vein of what you're talking about, except codified and dogmatized.
One more thing: you said "If you meet the world in a static way, you meet with conflict." While I can't disagree with this, I would not agree that avoiding conflict at all costs is desirable, nor is the goal of complete fluidity of thought without its price. If you accept all things, you lose your identity, and conflict is an important and fundamental aspect of nature. We hone ourselves against one another. Harmony is desirable, but harmony is not unison, nor is it perfectly static or perfectly fluid. If you adopt a perfectly static ideology, you cease to learn, but if you refuse to accept anything as true, even tentatively, you are also unable to learn.
First, let me say that one need not, must not, believe anything in this regard. Generally, though, on a basic level, do you not perceive an 'order,' even if it's just in physical properties and principles that enabled all life to evolve and come into being? Do we not reflect this 'intelligent' order to some degree? Evolution is really only changing form through some mechanism (in the case of organic life, a genetic one). For us to exist at all there must be a higher order of mechanism--a planetary order, and for planetary order, a galactic order, and so on, correct? To some (including myself) this order implies an Intelligence, perhaps one based in an all-encompassing CONSCIOUSNESS (of which we are a part). Further, it may be that what we perceive with our physical senses is only a tiny fraction of what we are capable of perceiving. If we are capable of 'higher' perception (scientific logic being a part of it, which is a part of thought [itself limited]), then we must develop it to be whole and complete and, most importantly, live in harmony among ourselves. Being incomplete and fragmented within ourselves is what creates a world (society) that reflects the same. However, it is only you who can verify whether this is true or not, and that means being aware, which is impossible if you are attached to any ideology--religious, political, or otherwise. In other words, one must 'see' holistically to be whole.
We often fail to see or remember that there is an 'intelligence' in the universe that governs everything, even human society (not to be mistaken with the phony--even psychopathic and sadistic--god created by false religiosity). Though we may think we are 'gods' unto ourselves and attempt to manipulate nature and other people to give us what we deem to be some momentary 'benefit,' we cannot escape the consequences of our actions; they are not determined by our desire. When one UNDERSTANDS consequences based on REALITY, he embraces some courses of action and avoids others.
For this, though, there must be awareness and understanding in the PRESENT MOMENT. All we usually get is the blather of ideology--whether the 'left' or 'right'--and wind up worshiping some dead document that's been bent and twisted to serve dark ends (see the constitution and bible). Until we get in touch with our heart, we will elect leaders that are just as asleep (spiritually speaking) as we are, and continue to blame them for the consequences of our own ignorance.
If Obama operates from that same sleep, REALITY will still come in and do what it must. By resisting it, though, we only increase the pain that that resistance brings when the dam finally breaks and nature and reality sweep away what they must in accordance with the Intelligence that governs us all. Clinging to ANY ideology will not help us then, and Obama will be swept up in the Wave just like anyone else. What people call "karma" is really only ignorance of natural consequences--regarding those that govern the external world as well as our internal one. Remember, too, that all psychological suffering is the outcome of resistance arising from ignorance (really a lack of self-understanding), and is therefore unnecessary.
"Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," Obama said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing." It is a line the president-elect's defenders echo often.
There is a certain arrogance to this that I find troubling.
The suggestion is that Obama himself is the exclusive font of progressive change. Then why does he have to appoint any advisors to inform his opinion since he himself is the spring from which revelation flows? The Decider.
Obama has a certain self-centered arrogance that is sure to be his undoing. That, and he is ultimately a coward, lining up the old political hacks he can cower behind. What do you want to bet that is the real reason he surrounded himself with the old corrupt priests of the old order?
What a shame. He coulda been a contender--instead he will emerge as their dupe. Will it be a squandered opportunity ultimately? If the trend continues expect the disappointment also to continue because it could've gone either way. the new thinking is that he always held these hawkish view, but on the campaign trail, the accepted view was that he had to triangulate Right to get his foot in the door, but then his true progressive would emerge. Instead it was any progressive identity on issues that resonate with the population that he disgarded once he won--and that most certainly IS a betrayal.
How will the next president market himself when the people get irritated how this one still didn't clean up the mess of fifty years of power abuse by previous presidents ?
'Real change we can really believe in' ?
'Yes we can, and really we can this time' ?
It is bitter, but I don't expect any change as long as the entire system does not change. Yes Obama is black and the corporations chose him for exactly that reason: it means that progressives have a harder time criticizing him, because they can easily be dismissed as 'racists'.
There is really nothing spectacular about Obama's presidential win: the corporations bought him a long time ago and you know when they place an order it has to be delivered. I guess it's easy to predict who will win the presidency in th U.S. system: just have a look at who gathered the most campaign funds. The only thing that is a bit surprising this time after the two previous elections is that the people chose the same candidate as the corporations did by their campaign donations so that the election didn't have to be stolen, so well yes the election was free and fair.
Things will get worse, before they get better.
How many readers of this site know that Winnetou is a fictional character namely the chief of the Apache Indians in a series of novels by the German writer Karl May who never set foot in the United States? The "European" hero of the novels was named "Old Shatterhand". Great reading!
Don't be too harsh on Obama. He just doesn't want to be assassinated by the mafia that rules the United States behind the scenes.
The be elected president is one thing; to stay alive in that position is another.
I just posted on another article, Michael Parenti's piece on Afghanistan, and for links to articles and a video about and with Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom I've read is the or certainly one of the top foreign policy "advisers" of the Obama administration.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/02#comment-1086604
Yes, this is all correct, sadly.
The only nuance I'd quibble with is this statement by Scahill: "At the same time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal."
For those paying attention to the details, this assessment is somewhat factual. However, Obama did very consciously paint himself as the antiwar candidate during the primaries. It was all based on a weak anti-Iraq war speech he once made. As if to show he wasn't deviating from the corporate plan, Obama was careful to emphasize in that speech that "I am not opposed to all wars." He made that statement three or so times in the speech.
Still, Obama did try to give the impression that he understood the Iraq invasion to be a mistake. His later statements, after winning the primary, about bombing Pakistan and escalating the war in Afghanistan should have made it clear to loyal Dems that his policies would reflect the bipartisan Bush consensus in Washington.
Actually, the loyal Dems don't see Obama's cabinet picks as a betrayal at all. They aren't even aware that anything is wrong. And therein lies the problem of accomplishing any sort of change whatsoever.
-TIA
This American Exceptionalism has got to stop. It makes me sick.
Thank goodness there are liberal writers such as Jeremy Skahill and liberal blogs. This is the only thing that keeps me going. Obama's foreign policy seems to be business as usual and I am very skeptical. I will know one thing for sure - if Obama keeps us in Iraq and we keep bases and military all over the place, then we do not have a Democracy anymore. We have a military industrial complex. It makes me sad.
"Moreover, Jones, who is a friend of McCain's, has said a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, "would be against our national interest"." I keep hearing this phrase on the news "our national interest." Does that mean we need to be in these countries so that we can have our fingers in their natural resources and control of their people? An empire for sure.
The end of American Democracy and America as a leader in the world.
this world does not run on who is president of the U S. It runs on kill and or be killed. It always has and always will run that way.
It is survival of the fittest (best armed) from the smallest germ to the mightiest army.
Controlling nations rise and fall with the tides.
There is not one plant or species that will last forever, including humans.
Do unto others has turned into Do Others.
I still have yet to see or hear any skeptic or Obama doom-bringer give an alternate list of qualified foreign policy appointments for Obama to choose from. All I hear is "blah! blah! blah!" but no better alternatives. I see all of Barack's appointments as very tactical and political, but I can at least see the logic in all of his choices without framing the man as a sellout.
"I still have yet to see or hear any skeptic or Obama doom-bringer give an alternate list of qualified foreign policy appointments . . ."
Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of State. Richard Clarke for National Security Advisor. Scott Ritter should be on the team. Ralph Nader in any position he desires.
I don't know much about military types, but how about General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, who opposed the surge because it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world?" Or, Admiral William J. Fallon, former CENTCOM commander, who was fired by Bush for saying "not on my watch" when Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iran?
Well, there were 153 members of Congress who voted against the Iraq war, for starters, who aren't anywhere on Obama's list. There has been plenty said about better people who might advance a progressive agenda, and it isn't all "blah! blah! blah!" unless you've closed your ears to ALL criticism of Obama because you need to think of him as some sort of savior, which you apparently do. What you see as "logic" in his choices, many of us see as resolve to continue the destructive Bush agenda. But to you that would be "blah! blah! blah!"
How much of that reflects on Obama, how much of that reflects on those of us skeptical about his choices, and how much of that reflects on the current political climate where experienced outspoken antiwar politicians are in short supply? I was right about Bush in September of 2001, and I'm seeing similar warning signs here, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. Despite our pretensions to Democracy, it truly is out of our hands at this point. We always have the option to reach outside the system to truly enforce the will of the people, but I don't think it's come to a point where we can support that sort of revolutionary action yet.
The audacity of hope holds the empire together like duct tape. God Bless the United States of America!
Indeed. More like the audacity of HYPE. Obama's true colors are more and more apparent by the day. I wish I were surprised. I voted for Cynthia McKinney.
Don't leave out the transparent, lightweight plastic sheeting of nascent optimism!
· Yr Obd't Servant
This is upsetting and as one of our brothers commented, just read Andrew Bacevich's brilliant book "The limits of Power", The end of American Exceptionalism.. for all we are seeing here.
I hope i'm wrong but Obama is following in lockstep with the continuation of the American Empirical ambition, which is global expansion by the use of force "if necessary"...WEll Stan, as Ollie would say, Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into". The war Hawks are back...I just hope that I'm wrong and it doesn't look like what it looks like..
Harvard and Yale, the ivy leaguers, have not served us well. Clinton, Bush and now
Obama. Why can't the IVY League teach their students to work for the common good of the country, instead of making them world wide terrorists. Money seems to
be the goal at any cost to the Ivy Leaguers.
Misleading statements and misleading adventures all over the world has become
the pass-word for this crowd. Congress should introduce a bill for a one payor
health care bill and give us an opportunity to see who votes against it.
We could then vote them all out of office. They would not dare allow a bill of
such importance to the working classes to be submitted in congress.
Great article. This author joins Hedges and Greenwald as authentic progressive voices. Downside is the bulk of tripe by the wannabe progressive movement that inundates these pages.
I may not agree with what you say, but I must defend your right to say it!
(As it happens, in this instance I agree completely... but I'm just sayin'...)
· Yr Obd't Servant
Well!!!
Now we know that Obama's campaign rhetoric was NOT just 'smoke' to assuage the hawks.
It was really his message.
Now maybe those of us who voted for Nader or McKinney can say we voted for the only candidates advocating peace and moving towards shutting down the MIC that Eisenhower warned us about.
But I could be wrong !
You're not wrong!
If I was smarter, I'd ad something witty and sophisticated to your comment.
P.S. two t's in 'Sagitarius' - I know, I know...
Obama-swooners/groupies are telling me that I cannot criticize the president elect because “he has not done anything yet and McCain would have been worse.”
Well, here is a quotation from one of his latest speeches:"To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.”
Whaaaat? Prosperity? I thought that armies were needed to protect us from invasions.
When you have read “The Limits of Power” by Andrew J. Bacevich you begin to understand that Obama is not a “changer” but an unreconstructed continuation of traditional US imperialism which I have argued he is for more than one year.
According to Bacevich our collective demand for “ensuring prosperity here at home” is exactly the justification for the maintenance of our Gargantuan industrial-military complex.
Translate Obama’s quotation and you will get: “we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet to keep our grip on oil, copper, tungsten and numerous other imports from abroad. These imports must be protected by military might lest we will sink down to the living standard of the Congo.”
Mr. Obama, I am one person who does not share your saber-rattling ideology. McCain would have made exactly the same statement!
I concur totally. Obama, unfortunately, is merely another servant of Empire and its nasty ways, i.e., wars, military bases stationed all over the planet to keep the place in line with U.S. interests, will, and objectives, massive sales of weapons to other nasties, thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the four corners of the world, neoliberal economic policies, meddling in other nations' affairs, etc.
Well-said!!
Unfortunately, Obama may have been alluding to the fact that the "Defense Industry" (aka the MIC) is the largest single sector in the US economy and the largesr producer of high-income jobs in the US.
Just take a trip to the high-income parts of the US - around the DC beltway, out to Orange County CA, San Diego, CA, or Cobb County/Atlanta GA. Take note of all the Obama stickers on the spanking-new BMW's, Mercedes and Lexii in these areas...
---USAn---
People have got to wake up to the fact that this isn't your father's Democratic Party anymore. Today's Democratic party is totally controlled by right-wing liberals, who are extremely hawkish and totally devoted to promoting corporate wealth and power. Obama's more right-wing than Bush, much more so. If you don't believe that, just wait and see.
It's time we stood up to the Democrats. They are just as much of a threat to this country as the Republicans. They are very dangerous people. There's nothing "lesser" about their evils, and there's nothing good or admirable about the corrupt people who vote for them.
The United States' political system is one party system, The Party of Money, which has two wings. Every four years, representatives of the two wings play a game of ping-pong. The ball in the game is the electorate.
Yes, Bill and Hillary Clinton introduced the Democrats in Warshington, D.C. (Death and Corruption) to Reaganmoney in large sums. They told their fellow Dems to breath it in like fine perfume, rub their hands in it and make it their very best friend. They did and they love it. Nancy Pelosi will attest to this. Obama may turn out to be Calvin Coolidge or Woodrow Wilson, or he may have gotten it through his skull that swimming for four more years in Bush's unflushed toilet is tantamount to political suicide. I hope it's the latter. This is a nation that will cut off its nose to spite its face and has been doing so, gleefully, since the assassination of President Kennedy. If you tell it to put down the knife, they'll plunge it into your heart instead. You can't expect too much from an incorrigible place like this where everybody reads "The Secret". Maybe future generations will finally wise up, if it isn't too late.
It's true that the so-called Democratic Party and most of those in it are not really democrats as they were meant to be. We have 2 right-wing parties in our government, and we are in a lot of trouble. The Democratic Party, as it was meant to be, has dissolved into a branch of the right-wing. There ARE true Democratic politicians in our government (i.e. Kucinich, McKinney...), but they get shunned and driven from the party which is falsely calling itself the "Democratic Party". Take off the mask, and you'll see the writhing firey hate-filled face of a Republican. Until and unless we can thrust out the party of corporate money, we will continue the descent.
Well maybe you Obama haters would rather have McCain.
Just shut up if you have nothing to say
You're labeling people "Obama haters" for disagreeing with him now? How is that any different from when conservatives labeled anybody voicing dissent over the last 8 years "Bush bashers" and unpatriotic? Dissent is absolutely vital to get us on an acceptable track. I said that before it was fashionable to clown on Bush, once it got trendy, and I'm continuing to say it now. If we fail to use our right to free speech, we have nobody to blame but ourselves when it all goes wrong.
Not so fast, Winning Ticket!
Objecting to Obama's deceitful ways and to his demagogy is one thing, hating him is another. One does not imply the other.
I do not hate him, nor do any of my several posts here over the last few weeks contain any expression of hate, although they admittedly contain strong criticisms of Obama the politician, and the sharp contrast between his words during his campaign and his deeds since his election.
I think it's pathetic that the only viable voting option to McCain is a plastic mulato who is fronting for Bill Clinton.
It's also a glaring example of why everyone outside the US hates the US and always expects the worst kind of barbarism from its leaders.
"everyone outside the US hates the US and always expects the worst kind of barbarism from its leaders."
As a Dutchman living in Hungary, I can assure you this is patent nonsense.
I'm a lefty, I have voted nothing but Green or Socialist throughout my life. I've been active locally for the Green Left as well, and my parents represented the Labour Party locally. Yet even I do not remember ever having met anyone who "hated the US", nor do the people I know "always expect the worst kind of barbarism from its leaders".
And again, that's a perspective from the Dutch left, which is certainly critical of the US, and has loathed leaders like Reagan and Bush Jr. The majority of Dutch, meanwhile, tends to vote for a centre-right or right-wing party, and although even there GWB was widely ridiculed, the US is viewed positively.
Hungary, if anything, is actually somewhat more US-friendly than the Netherlands.
Barack Obama is very popular in the Netherlands, as poll after poll has showed, and viewed generally favourably in Hungary.
As a kid I took part in the mass demonstrations against nukes in '81 and '83 that coined the label "Hollanditis" for the Europe-wide resistance against NATO nukes; and resentment against Reagan ran very high, back then, on the left. But he was quite popular on the right, so if anything opinion was divided. I've also demonstrated against the Iraq war, and of course Bush Jr. enjoyed zero popularity in Holland; but Clinton was popular and Obama has roused enthusiasm.
So again: patent nonsense. There is practically no hatred of the US as a country, and no general assumption that any US government will just create "the worst kind of barbarism".
"[Obama] is a plastic mulato who is fronting for Bill Clinton."
Except that Obama is even more Republican-lite than Bill Clinton.
e.g. Clinton cut military spending and size; Obama will increase both. Clinton never breached international law by unilaterally attacking a country that was not an imminent threat; Obama pledges to do so in Pakistan. Clinton changed the tax code to make the rich pay their fair share (and put the federal budget in the black); Obama now says he won't end the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning more than $250,000/year (because the economy is too bad).
"Well maybe you Obama haters would rather have McCain."
I'm stuck in this weird time-loop thingy whenever I hear this comment...When Malcolm X was interviewed whether he preferred Goldwater or Johnson, (I know I am going to screw this up) but I believe he surprised the interviewer by saying Goldwater because you knew that a wolf was after you. Johnson was a fox that would catch you unawares & eat you. McCain is the Wolf & Obama the fox.
"Well maybe you Obama haters would rather have McCain". It is facile statements like this that from my perspective, are sophomoric to say the least. The Greedy Oil Party and the Demorats are controlled by the same wealthy,elite,people and if nothing else, the 2006 election is all the proof you need!
This is the typically pathetic retort of a Dem Party Apologist, who thinks militarism is OK as long as it's done by a Democrat.
Actually, the voting public has every right to despise BOTH parties for their militarism & subservience to the Wall St banksters. The fact that McCain would've been bad doesn't make Obama good.
It may well turn out that there will be very little difference between the two, in most of the things that matter. In some ways Obama may be even worse, because he's better at image management.
"Well maybe you Obama haters would rather have McCain."
You say that as if we don't. To quote McCain staffer Max Boot (as quoted in this very article): "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain." What's the point of having an election at all if those who lose end up running the new administration of those who "won"?
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
Well personally I WOULD rather have McCain but it looks as if Mr. Obama took the message of his NIE Briefing Seriously and realizes that the Terrorists are a serious threat and until they are defeated we are still at war...and this may last generations...
you don't have to call it GWOT but you'd better realize it still goes on...regardless if the President has a (D) or an (R) after his name
SnowWolf,
The "Global War on Terrorism" is a smoke screen for inflated and exaggerated spending of our resources on the bloated MIC.
I never doubted that, like Mister McCain, Mister Obama would primarily serve the interests of the owner/operators of the homeland. He would never have been a serious contender for the office if they couldn't trust him to address their needs above all else.
If you ask most of the people in the world, they would say that we are the terrorists and are the greatest threat to world stability.
Years ago US planners launched us on a course of action in the world that a logical analysis would have suggested an eventual resistence to that action. We are encountering that resistance. Since it is unlikely that we will give up our wet-dreams of world domination, that resistance will continue and probably increase.
A 'global war on terrorism' is pure propaganda, an empty marketing slogan, not a viable policy; no different from the 'war on poverty' or the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on AIDS' or the 'war on Illiteracy', all fabulous policy failures but quite successful means by which to spread taxpayer dollars around to the corporate interests that accrete around them.
The 'terrorists' we seek to destroy are purely 'retail terrorists'. We operate our 'terror' wholesale out of Washington.
Why not just call it Global War On The People, since it was fabricated by the terrorists in our government and their allies in the MIC?
So let me get this straight....
You're now saying that Obama is part of this domestic conspiracy theory to carry out fraud against the American People by pretending theres really Terrorists out there when the whole time its been a U.S. False Flag Op?...
Whatever it is you're smoking...where can I get some?
Wake up, SnowWolf. The CIA has been creating reasons to fund itself and the rest of the MIC since its inception. Who's killing our kids in Iraq? Where do those killers get their weapons? We'll never know. All we do know is that we have war without end, and it doesn't look like Obama's going to "CHANGE" that fact. And the MIC gets bigger and bigger, while all our paychecks (the bottom 90%, that is) keep getting smaller.
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gee, but who would want to keep us constantly at war? Gosh, you mean there's people out there that would rather get rich on war and death than see peace take hold? No way! (Sorry, but sarcasm does help make a point sometimes.)
I've posted it before, and I'll post it again: Obama is "good cop"; Bush was "bad cop", and before him were "good cop" Clinton and "bad cop" Reagan. As long as our only choice on election day is between "good cop" and "bad cop", our government will never again be of, by, and for the People. Our loyalties should be the the Truth and the Constitution, not dismally corrupt political parties -- or their leaders.
Obama has been praised for his scholarship and intelligence, so why the appointments of a hawkish cabinet? Would he not agree with Immanuel Kant who wrote in 1797;
"Moral-practical reason within us pronounces the following irresistible veto: There shall be no war, either between individual human beings in the state of nature or between separate states, which, although internally law governed still live in a lawless condition in their external relations with one another.
For war is not the way in which anyone should pursue his rights...it can indeed be said that this task of establishing a universal and lasting peace is not just a part of the theory of right within the limits of pure reason , but it's entire ultimate purpose." (From Kant's "Metaphysical Elements of Justice")
True morality vetoes war. If we are claiming to be such a moral and righteous nation then our decisions should be made toward establishing lasting peace. Appointing these war hawks, who are beholden to the MIC, is not a decision based on "moral-practical reason".
Yes, indeed, "[a]ppointing these war hawks, who are beholden to the MIC, is not a decision based on "moral-practical reason"."
Most of Scahill's comments are dead on target, but his article shows evidence of a puzzling sort of multiple personality disorder that seems to be cropping up more and more often in commentary of this genre. Consider this passage:
"We were told repeatedly during the campaign that Obama was right on the premiere foreign policy issue of our day--the Iraq war. 'Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so,' Obama said in his September debate against John McCain. 'Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.'"
Obama has been an opponent of the Iraq war since before he entered the Senate, and that campaign rhetoric was consistent with his record. Try to make that passage fit with this, though:
"...it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama's selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail..."
Scahill's judgment that "there is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus" is a correct one. How can that be "in sync" with his previous record and his campaign rhetoric?
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
"...Obama has been an opponent of the Iraq war since before he entered the Senate, and that campaign rhetoric was consistent with his record...."
- There are very different senses in which one may be "an opponent of the Iraq war." One way is to say that the war is morally wrong, based on lies about WMD, but really for oil and the establishment of permanent US military bases in the Middle East. If you oppose the war in this way, you also denounce the war's perpetrators as criminals by the Nuremberg standards. You explicitly denounce the mass murder & destruction of Iraqi society that were an inevitable consequence of the criminal US invasion & occupation. You point out that we've killed over a million Iraqis already, & you also point out the vast corruption, profiteering & waste of taxpayer money that have been part & parcel of the war.
Obama never took any such position. He never made any of those points. He merely said in 2002 that the war was "stupid." He said he's "not against all wars, only stupid wars." This did not carry with it any moral condemnation whatsoever. It merely implied that he thought the invader (that's us) could find himself bogged down in a quagmire, following an invasion; & that the whole enterprise might therefore be harmful to the invader's interests. This is not really an "antiwar" position. It's being skeptical about the desirability of committing a certain crime, rather than being opposed to the crime itself. It's like a Mafia consiglieri, who advises his Godfather not to get involved in a certain line of "business," because the business may prove too risky, compared to the potential benefits.
Correct. As I've noted previously Obama's vaunted 2002 speech was neutral-war, not anti-war. Moreover, making the speech at an anti-war rally was "in part a political calculation that he hoped would benefit him among Democrats . . ." according to "Obama: From Promise to Power," by former Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell. (At the time, he was running for Illinois State Senate and courting support from leading liberal Democrats in Chicago.)
Excellent point. I don't understand why so many Obama supporters believe that he opposed the Iraq war. They don't seem to give a hoot how he actually voted - as long as he speaks soothing words.
Here are a few records related to Obama's past votes in the Senate. The first continues funding for the Iraq war (he voted for it). The second would have pulled troops out of Iraq (he voted against it). You can search the Senate roll calls at http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm.
Question: On the Conference Report (H.R.5631 Conference Report )
Measure Title: A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
Obama (D-IL), Yea
This bill includes the following: Iraq Security Forces Fund (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) For the `Iraq Security Forces Fund', $1,700,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008
Question: On the Amendment (Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 )
Statement of Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Obama (D-IL), Nay
"I don't understand why so many Obama supporters believe that he opposed the Iraq war. They don't seem to give a hoot how he actually voted - as long as he speaks soothing words."
The Kerry amendment you reference would have mandated a complete withdrawal by a hard deadline, which he has always opposed. He has voted for at least four Iraq funding bills (not just the one you mention), because he opposes cutting off funds for those in the field. As for his larger record, Obama has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning--that's a matter of public record. He's been one of its loudest public critics in the Senate, and has voted for perhaps half a dozen different bills and amendments calling for redeployment (including the original, strong version of Feingold-Reid, before its sponsors pulled its teeth), and even introduced his own.
So what you're saying is he doesn't want to pull funding for troops in the field, but he doesn't want to bring the troops back. How exactly does that make him antiwar? Not that it matters; as it's been pointed out he was never antiwar per se, he was at best anti-this-war.
In any case, it fail to address concerns that arose during the campaign around his support of the Palestinian occupation, plans for increased military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or these newer concerns about hawkish cabinet nominations. The issue of whether it was an actual betrayal or not are moot. He was portrayed as antiwar, but he has shown this to be untrue. This is what is at the heart of the issue, despite whatever quibbling you want to do.
You're using a peculiar definition of "oppose". Of course he makes excuses for why he voted to fund the war - he's a politician. The funding bills gave the Bush administration everything they wanted, and those who voted in favor of them supported the war by doing so. Being a public critic of the war (in a very limited sense, as DaveBronstein pointed out) while voting for it is simply hypocrisy, not virtue.
John Mitchell sayeth:
"You're using a peculiar definition of 'oppose'. Of course he makes excuses for why he voted to fund the war - he's a politician. The funding bills gave the Bush administration everything they wanted, and those who voted in favor of them supported the war by doing so. Being a public critic of the war (in a very limited sense, as DaveBronstein pointed out) while voting for it is simply hypocrisy, not virtue."
Obama authored a bill that would have ended the occupation and voted for various bills and amendments that would have done the same on perhaps half a dozen or more occasions, as I've already noted. Obama the Senator is not the chief executive. All you accomplish by cutting off funds is leaving those in the field in the position they were in when the war began--with insufficient ammo, lousy (or no) armor, inadequate equipment, inadequate manpower, insufficient spare parts, and responsibility for whatever happens is assumed by congress, which, not being the executive, is powerless to actually run the thing for which they've assumed responsibility. The result: More people die, the administration escapes any responsibility for the situation (which we all know will be a mess, no matter what happens), funding is restored, and conservatives rule at home for the next 40 years, insuring untold thousands more die.
You may not like that point of view, but it's a legitimate one.
classicliberal2 sezeth: "All you accomplish by cutting off funds is leaving those in the field in the position they were in when the war began--with insufficient ammo, lousy (or no) armor, inadequate equipment, (etc.)... "
***
In a government with co-equal branches, the executive would bear responsibility for leaving those in the field with insufficient ammo, et al, after being directed by The People's representatives to discontinue the occupation.
Of course, the U.S. does not have co-equal branches, and precious few representatives of The People.
classicliberal2 declaimeth:
"All you accomplish by cutting off funds is leaving those in the field ... with insufficient ammo, lousy (or no) armor ..."
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that if Congress had forcefully refused to continue funding the war, it would have forced the administration to end the war. The Democrats did Bush's bidding for eight full years, all the while using the tired excuse that their hands were tied.
Another instance of Obama's Zen-like "opposing without opposing" is his public refusal to support the impeachment of Bush or Cheney, despite their open assault on our Constitution. I'm sure he has political reasons for that stance as well.
"Obama authored a bill that would have ended the occupation and voted for various bills and amendments that would have done the same on perhaps half a dozen or more occasions ...".
Which bills are you referring to?
>> All you accomplish by cutting off funds is
>> leaving those in the field ... with
>> insufficient ammo, lousy (or no) armor...
>
> That's one opinion.
No, it's one possible scenario--the likely one. Bush would have held firm on this, and he would have won.
> Another opinion is that if Congress had
> forcefully refused to continue funding the
> war, it would have forced the administration
> to end the war.
Possible, but unlikely. Everyone knows Iraq is a mess, and will continue to be a mess, no matter what happens. Congress isn't the executive branch; they aren't going to assume responsibility for this. Whatever one thinks of that viewpoint, it is the political reality.
> The Democrats did Bush's bidding for eight
> full years, all the while using the tired
> excuse that their hands were tied.
You'll get no arguments from me on this. I think their behavior has, overall, been cowardly and disgraceful. It usually is. Part of the reason what I outlined above IS the political reality is because too few of those in congress ever did enough to try to bring public opinion around to a more reasonable--which is to say "virulently anti-Bush"--point of view. The lack of meaningful political leadership is one of the reasons it took so damn long to get a public consensus against so obviously idiotic and wrong a thing as the Iraq war. Granted, someone offering a different perspective would have to battle the corporate press to even try to get across that message, but the truth is that few ever tried. Obama is one of the few who did.
> Another instance of Obama's Zen-like
> "opposing without opposing"
A stupid and useless (and, more importantly, uninformed) characterization.
> is his public refusal to support the
> impeachment of Bush or Cheney, despite their
> open assault on our Constitution. I'm sure
> he has political reasons for that stance as
> well.
He would, and they're good ones--it all goes back to that unfortunate political reality. Impeachment has no chance of succeeding, on the one hand, and you inflame the political opposition, on the other. Obama wants to "get along" (which I find infuriating and disgusting).
>> Obama authored a bill that would have ended
>> the occupation and voted for various bills
>> and amendments that would have done the same
>> on perhaps half a dozen or more occasions ...
>
> Which bills are you referring to?
You brought up the failed 2006 Kerry amendment earlier. Obama did, indeed, vote against it. So did practically everyone else, though--it was crushed by a vote of 13-86. Earlier that same day, though, Carl Levin's amendment calling for a phased redeployment out of Iraq had been up for a vote. Obama had worked for that measure, operating behind the scenes to garner support for it (he'd been publicly advocating withdrawal since before he was elected to the Senate), co-sponsored it, and, of course, voted in favor of it. It failed, but the vote was a much closer 39-60.
This was June, 2006.
These measures defeated, Obama worked, for the rest of the year, on behalf of Joe Biden's proposed amendment to both the Iraq funding bill and the Defense appropriations bill that would have prevented Bush from using any funds for the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, or for controlling Iraq's oil. This was successful--the amendment was added to both bills, and passed overwhelmingly (one, as I recall, was a unanimous vote in the Senate).
By January, Obama had drawn up his own redeployment bill, modeled on the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group. Its key provisions and language were adopted by nearly all of the subsequent bills of that sort, including McCain-Feingold (that summer, Russ Feingold said "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go.").
Bush had launched the "surge," and Obama supported Harry Reid's efforts to get the Senate to condemn that action. The measure fell only 3 or 4 votes shy of the 60 needed (I don't have the final vote number in my notes). Republicans filibustered, because it would have passed, otherwise. In March, Reid offers a measure that would have begun the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Obama votes in favor of it, but it fails by a vote of 48-50. A few weeks later, a similar measure passes 50-48, Obama voting for it, as well.
In April, Obama supported legislation calling for redeployment out of Iraq starting in Oct. The measure passes 51-46, but falls short of the veto-proof majority. And Bush vetoes it. May saw Feingold-Reid--the original, strong version, not the later gutted one. Obama becomes one of only 29 Senators to support the amendment (crushed miserably). The same month, another "emergency" funding request--this is how the administration pays for the war. On this one, language is removed that would have called for a phased withdrawal, and, as a consequence, Obama becomes one of only 14 Senators to vote against it.
And so on.
As this "Naturally" clown has said, Obama failed to vote on a later version of Feingold-Reid, but, by then, its teeth had been pulled anyway. For a politician, Obama has been remarkably consistent on this point.
"Which bills are you referring to?"
You'll never get an answer to that question from classicliberal2. He/she is a prevaricator/bullshit artist.
See my conversation with him concerning Obama's non-vote on the Feingold-Reid amendment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/20
Naturally November 20th, 2008 1:45 pm
In 1999 the US Supreme Court ruled in Campbell vs. Clinton that Congressional appropriation of funds for a specific war is the equivalent of a Congressional Declaration of War.
That ruling may be poor but it has been the law of the land since 1999.
Ergo, the first time Senator Obama voted funds for the war in Iraq he approved the conduct of the war. Whether he was for or against the war in Iraq became instantly irrelevant. His "aye" vote placed him in the camp of the paymasters that made the war constitutionally legal*. All of his subsequent "anti-war" claims during the campaign are just so many lies.
*The oft repeated statement that the war in Iraq is "illegal" is only true in the context of certain binding international laws. In the context of our constitution it became legal when the first penny was appropriated for it by Congress.
I wouldn't argue with any of that. I think we could both agree, as well, that for someone who opposes the Iraq war in either sense to choose the people Obama has been choosing, while excluding anyone who reflects his own view, is quite bizarre, and to do it after he'd just won an election on the basis of his own views is an entirely inappropriate betrayal of those who have put him where he is.
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
It's tempting to say that with these hawkish choices for the key personnel of his nascent administration, Obama has "sold out" to the forces of militarism. But the truth is that he was never anything but a corporatist/militarist from the very start. He merely played the role of an "anti-war liberal" in the dreams & wishful thinking of his gullible supporters.
Now we see quite tangibly & concretely what a hot-air slogan like "Hope and Change!" translates to when it comes out of the mouth of a corporate Democrat.
Obama's apologists will say, "Give the guy a chance! He's not even president yet!" The pathetic weakness of this defense should be visible, even for the most naive liberal. The team Obama has assembled means a continuation of US militarism, with only the faces & personalities changing. This will affect the lives of all Americans going forward. In effect, he's already started being president, and he's already acting against the interests of most of those who voted for him. Therefore, it is entirely justifiable to start regarding this fraud for what he is: a US president, no less committed to militarism, imperialism & corporatism than other US presidents.
Well said, DaveBronstein.
Change for Obama literally amounts to changing the resident of the White House.
When you vote for the lessor of two evils, you still get evil.
That's why I voted against evil.
I voted for change.
I voted for hope.
I got what I voted for.
Well, you certainly got the hope. Let's wait and see if you get the change.
I will believe Joe got the change when I see the incarceration of Bush, Cheney and the rest of his thugs and murderers!
Joe,
You did not vote against evil.
Stop trying to kid yourself.
When Rush Evil starts endorsing Obama's cabinet, you know you have been conned.
Et tu, Obama?
Go Jeremy Scahill go! I have only one disagreement. I don't think one can say who McCain would have appointed, (or Oh, that's who McCain would have according to, his pal Boot,) nor would I quote Boot, although you are using it to make your argument. I think it's more than needed to make your point. DemocracyNow had a good panel this morning. Sigh.