Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack 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."
- Posted in
89 Comments so far
Show AllGo 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.
Et tu, Obama?
When Rush Evil starts endorsing Obama's cabinet, you know you have been conned.
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!
Well said, DaveBronstein.
Change for Obama literally amounts to changing the resident of the White House.
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/
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/
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.
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.
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 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?
"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
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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"."
Well maybe you Obama haters would rather have McCain.
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
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.
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.
SnowWolf,
The "Global War on Terrorism" is a smoke screen for inflated and exaggerated spending of our resources on the bloated MIC.
"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 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!
"[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).
"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".
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.
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.
Just shut up if you have nothing to say
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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---
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!!!
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...
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