For Obama supporters who say that Obama is 'antiwar'.

[readmoreoften]

GREENBURG, PA -- Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/29/837657.aspx

NOTE: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON. I KNOW CLINTON IS NOT ANTIWAR.
THIS IS ABOUT YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF BARACK OBAMA AS A FRESH NEW PROGRESSIVE.

[Muttocracy]

1. that one sentence by itself is a little out of context

GREENBURG, PA -- Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve.

"It is George Bush who has been naïve and it's people like John McCain and unfortunately some democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naïve ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation in the world," Obama said.

Drawing on the example of the first Gulf War, Obama said that the first President Bush had "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

"Remember, people were saying why didn't you go into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein? The realists understood that that would be a nightmare. And it wasn't worth our national interests," Obama added.

He described this President Bush's world view on foreign policy as a big stick approach.

"Certainly George Bush's foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that because we are so militarily powerful we can dictate events around the world," he said. "If people don't like it doesn't matter because we are the biggest, toughest thing on the block. Now that is naïve."

Obama claimed that since 9-11, the way foreign policy was viewed had turned from one that understood the limits of military power and had placed a greater emphasis on diplomatic and economic strength to one that placed its sole emphasis on country's military might.

He described the conventional thinking in Washington on foreign policy as "bipartisan" and this "both ideological and highly political."

That foreign policy he argued operated from the assumption that United States could act "as a lone super power" and said that "Senator Clinton is as captive to it in some ways as John McCain and George Bush."

"I do think that Senator Clinton would understand that George Bush's polices have failed," Obama added. "But in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that lead her to vote for the war in Iraq. Since 9-11 the conventional wisdom has been you have to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the republicans. And I disagree with it."

[readmoreoften]

11. It's not out of context. It's a direct quote.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan,"

I'm not saying Barack Obama's foreign policy is identical to Bush 41 and Reagan. I'm saying that HE SAID that Bush 41 and Reagan are examples of REALISTIC foreign policy that he thinks are worthy of emulation.

Personally, I can't imagine Kucinich or Gravel--truly anti-war candidates--making such a statement.

[Muttocracy]

16. I didn't say you misquoted. I said the surrounding context was missing. nt

[progdonkey]

26. maybe you should read more often...

I recommend something that will explain what "out of context" means.

[readmoreoften]

38. I read plenty. Thanks for your concern. It's a direct quote from your hero who I take at his word.

Even if you don't. My issue is that he clearly states that Bush and Reagan's policies are (1) born of realism and (2) something he plans to return to. There's no 'out of context' there.

[Muttocracy]

44. now you're misquoting (changing words)

[readmoreoften]

48. Point out the Barack Obama in this post.

That's an extrapolation, not a quote.

[progdonkey]

57. he's not my "hero"...

Assuming things to be true is another subject you need to read up on. I wasn't even defending Obama, but saw that your response to the other poster, which showed that you had no understanding of context.

And you clearly still have absolutely no clue what the concept of "context" is. Yes, I understand it's a direct quote (although I'm finding you exponentially less and less credible on even that). That's irrelevant to the criticism of context. Context is where did he say it (to whom was he speaking), what did he say before it, after it, and what was the clear meaning of the whole speech.

Look up "quote mining." Here's an example: creationists like to quote Darwin as writing, "To believe that the eye evolved from natural means, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Yes, he did actually write that, but what they leave out is the "but that's nevertheless what the evidence shows" (or something to that extent) that followed.

That's the difference between having a direct quote and having a direct quote that is present in context.

[readmoreoften]

63. I'm criticizing the fact that he even called Reagan and Bush 41's policies realistic.

I'm not taking Barack Obama out of context or misconstruing his words. I am not saying that there is some ulterior meaning behind his words. I am saying that with this quote, Barack Obama lumped Bush 41, Reagan, and JFK's foreign policies together as realism. I find this IN AND OF ITSELF indefensible. If Barack Obama 'meant' that he--like Bush, Reagan, and JFK, would not start any wars we could not win (as one poster suggested) then he would in my opinion--and yes, this is my opinion!-- not qualify as an antiwar candidate by any definition. The problem with Iraq is not that we didn't "win" it, but that it is wrong on its face: just like Iraq I was wrong, just like the proxy wars fought in Latin America by US trained paramilitary groups was wrong.

And if you think I misquoted the article, it's easy enough to figure out by going to the link.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Hear hear. Unfortunately we have lost the historical argument on this.

Ther children of yuppies now flooding back to the Dem party have been fully indoctrinated into believing the 80s/90s were good times, unions are obsolete, school desegregation was a mistake, welfare and public housing should be ended, RFK and Nixon were both leftists, and an agressive intervention policy is justified as long as we are winning.

[stevenleser]

36. You understand that something can be a direct quote and still out of context, right?

Thought so
:sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

42. Let's give this a try. Fictitious candidate from the future.

"In a way, mine is a return to the foreign policies of George W. Bush, FDR, and Nixon."

Give it a try. With no context at all, defend your fictitious candidate's return to ANY quality of GWB's foreign policy.

[BlooInBloo]

55. LOLOLOL! I'm gonna quote you on that - and out of context even....

EDIT: It's especially funny because of your name.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. DUers hate Gravel. They tolerate Kucinich only because he's considered an eccentric oddball

Most Democrats find anti-war sentiments crucial so long as they are unthreatening to their personal lifestyle and interests.

A bumpersticker antiwar sentiment like that of Tom Hayden, the man
who urges us to adopt Obama's plan after declaring that it will
endorse permanent bases in Iraq -- which Kerry (another liberal
hated by DU) campaigned against.

What's amazing is to see the rightward shift on DU as Bush II LEAVES
the stage and is replaced by figures more "inclusive" of unapologetic
former Bush supporters.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. Gulf War I left us Stronger????????????

How many DUers agree with him on that?

How many DUers are even capable of thinking outside the Reagan/Clinton box
on issues of Post-Cold War direction of the entire world, including the
collapse of Russia, the massive US disinvestment in protectionist, pro-labor Japan and investment in the Chinese neo-capitalist dictatorship
designed to create a "counterbalance" to western social democracies to foster a wealthy global elite? Creation of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia thru direct US policies? Hmm?

Americans truly are historically ignorant. People who live in the countries affected know all about what the US did in the 80s/90s.

[readmoreoften]

2. Kick for more votes please.

I really want to know.

[anonymous171]

3. Has ANY president been anti-war?

I mean, you could compliment FDR's foreign policy, but he had WWII.

[Muttocracy]

6. Didn't Obama say he was against "stupid wars"? nt

[anonymous171]

9. Yeah. I took that to mean that he was against neoconservative foreign policy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. Obviously he's not. He endorses permanent bases in Iraq -- which Kerry campaigned AGAINST

Just saying. Clinton is even worse.

People forget that Reagan and the Blue Dogs (Clinton et al) INVENTED
Neoconservatism and Neoliberal economics.

People can be so misinformed... :cry:

[zonmoy]

10. he wasn't antiwar.

ever heard of this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

[anonymous171]

12. I know that. But he is also considered the greatest Democrat. Ever.

[zonmoy]

27. that doesn't mean that he was a saint.

besides he did it to stop the forefathers of the cabal that now runs the republican party.

[anonymous171]

46. Yeah. I get it.

Has any president ever been completely anti-war?

[zonmoy]

89. none that I have ever heard of.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. I thought Jefferson was the greatest Democrat ever.

Would Jefferson have interned the Japanese?

Would Jefferson have death-marched the Indians like the Democrats' own Reagan: Andrew Jackson?

[Swamp Rat]

4. Other: I cannot vote in this poll or any like it until "in some ways" has been clearly defined.

[readmoreoften]

15. He says 'in some ways' like Reagan but he does not say 'in some ways' like GHWB.

And I do connect GHWB to the military policies of the Reagan era. I think of him as Reagan's Cheney in many ways.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Until Obama defines what he meant by "in some ways," it's all speculation.

Maybe he meant, 'ice cream discounts for service personnel during heightened security alert status' ... 'Discounts for DEFCON 3?'

"in some ways" can mean anything.

[readmoreoften]

25. That is true in the case of Reagan, but what about George Bush 1?

He doesn't say in 'some ways' in that context. Swamp Rat, you know I love you, and I know you deeply despise these RW lizards so I value your opinion in particular.

[Swamp Rat]

59. I see what you mean.

Maybe he is referring to the restraint both JFK and Bush 1 showed; JFK did not launch a full-scale attack against the Soviets, and Bush 1 did not go all the way to Baghdad. :shrug:

I don't know because he did not fully explain what he meant, which makes your question relevant, if not prescient.

[readmoreoften]

68. Thanks Swamp Rat.

I really value your opinions and always have. Perhaps it has to do with the use of the word 'realism' that bothers me. Don't get me wrong, 'adventurism', 'irrationalism', 'obsurantism' are usually worse alternatives. But as someone who lived in Nicaragua and Mexico, the 'realist' tactics of the Republican 80s and early 90s are what I would call cynical mass murder for corporate profit. I'd rather not return to that and I know that most DUers--the majority of whom were for DK and Edwards until recently--don't want it either.

Is restraint the best we can ask for in this election? The answer frightens me, my friend.

[Swamp Rat]

74. Estoy de acuerdo.

And I can relate. I lived close to the border of Nicaragua (Guanacaste), and in South America (Brazil).

You have hit the button on my cabeza: U.S. restraint IS what I am hoping for in the near future.

Unfortunately, most people are not frightened enough right now. We have, for the most part, a lot of hawks in charge who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the long-term implications of their foreign policy agenda(s), and the numerous unintended consequences... let alone the consequences already experienced.

[readmoreoften]

81. I lived in Bluefields.

I travelled among both former Sandinistas and Contras. I'm sorry that the best we can hope for is restraint. I'd like someone who shut down (or heavily reformed) the SOA. In reality, I feel like I'm too far to the left to feel even vaguely represented by the Democrats anymore. I feel like our choices are lizards with restraint and lizards without. :(

[Skip Intro]

5. Obama is NOT anti-war. I can understand why some of his supporters think he is, but he's not.

When you run on vague, feel-good hallmark slogans, trying to be everything to everyone, a "blank slate" as he describes himself in his book, well then you got all kinds of people thinking he is whatever it is they want.

But in fact, he has praised the foreign policies of bush1 and reagan. In fact, he did say we should get troops out of Iraq and "onto the right battlefields." None of that is anti-war.

I wish you had an option in your poll that simply stated as much.

[maximusveritas]

7. Obama specifically said he's not against all wars, just stupid wars

And I've never heard any of his supporters argue differently. So this is just a stupid strawman.

[readmoreoften]

21. So Iraq I, Panama, Faukland Islands were not 'stupid wars'?

Really? What other 'stupid wars' have their been?

[nsd]

29. Iraq I was not a stupid war. Al Gore, among others, supported it.

The Panama invasion was perhaps less necessary, but plenty of Democrats applauded it.

The Falkland Islands was Britain's thing. Not our responsibility.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Iraq I was a stupid war, but it was a well handled stupid war. Panama was for personal bush family

business, and the Falklins was a stupid war started mainly be rightwing Argentinian Military types looking for a way out of their other messes. Didn't work out too well.

[readmoreoften]

56. Agreed. These stupid wars were all handled much better than Iraq II.

But has there been any war in US history more disastrous than Iraq II? Perhaps we'll see.

I am also against stupid wars. That is why I would never include Bush and Reagan in the 'foreign policy realism' category. Unless realism means murdering anyone who opposes neoliberal expansion. In that case, it is something I'd not like to return to.

[NJmaverick]

8. It's the height of foolishness, egotism and partisanship

To think that there was absolutely nothing the Republicans have done right. Bush Sr. conducted a smart war in Iraq (take away that he may have caused it). It shames me to see Republicans act like complete horse's ass's whenever Obama mentions a Republican. You seem to forget he was rated the most liberal Senator in the US. THINK before you post.

[readmoreoften]

17. It shames you to see "Republicans" act like a horses ass when Obama mentions a Republican?

It shames me to see "Republicans" like yourself defend the military policies of Reagan and Bush 1. And Obama is not the most liberal senator in the nation. That's a total load of manure.

[NJmaverick]

34. Ahh and there is one of the fools I am referring to

Maybe you need to expand your reading list RMO, and you wouldn't make such horse's ass of yourself.

[readmoreoften]

50. And that's called an ad hominem attack. It's what people use when they have no argument.

Which you don't. You're just another example of a Barack Obama supporter who'd rather push people out of the party than admit they disagree with their own candidate.

Anyone who challenges your candidate is a 'horse's ass' who doesn't 'read'.

[sandnsea]

13. Are you voting for McKinney?

I don't get the purpose of attacking Obama. He's the most likely to change our foreign policy of any of the three who have a chance of getting elected. Why sabatoge him?

[stevenleser]

14. Other, that was not how Obama meant this

[baldguy]

18. .

[Muttocracy]

20. LOL! nt

[readmoreoften]

23. No. Every time someone asks an Obama thug a question it's not a strawman you moron.

Do you support Obama's characterization of Bush 1 and Reagan's foreign policy as REALISTIC and worthy of emulation or not? Can you answer a fucking question?

[baldguy]

45. Ascribing a position to Obama which he does not hold

Which is then easily refuted by Obama's own statements. The very definition of a straw man.

Moron.

[readmoreoften]

53. Really. Then refute it instead of calling me names. That's what I asked you to do.

"Moron"

He calls Bush 1 and Reagan's foreign policies 'realistic'. Bush 1 and Reagan's 'realism' consisted of arming right-wing paramilitaries in Latin America in order to kill off those who did not want neoliberal expansion on their soil. This is not compatible with an antiwar position.

Either (1) show me where Obama does NOT say that Bush 41's and Reagan's positions were foreign policy realism.
(2) Show me evidence that Bush 41 and Reagan's so-called foreign policy realism is consistent with an antiwar position.
(3) Or click the option stating that you do not think Obama's policies are anti-war.


And ANYTHING Obama says can be 'easily' refuted by his own statements since he speaks vaguely and tends to go back and forth on where he stands. That means nothing.

[baldguy]

54. Hillary Clinton eats puppies & kittens.

Refute that.

[readmoreoften]

58. Exactly what I thought.

Sorry to ask you to work.

[baldguy]

66. At least my argument isn't a straw man.

[readmoreoften]

70. I didn't know there was a hierarchy of rhetorical sleaze.

Until you show some evidence of how my poll is a straw man argument (in fact, it's not an 'argument'--it's a question with some poll answers.) What you could call it is a polemic You can even call it a push poll because it is certainly slanted. But it's not a 'straw man'.

[baldguy]

84. Obama is not "anti-war".

Simple statement, repeated several time by several different posters on this very thread. With no supporting evidence offered by you.

Simply stating that "some people" believe this to be the case is not evidence. Then offering statements by Obama seeming to contradict his "anti-war policy" is not a refutation it since such does not exist.

Straw man.

[Mooney]

19. I chose...

"I'm an Obama supporter but I don't think that Obama is in any way 'antiwar' so this doesn't matter to me."

He said so himself, that he's not antiwar. Anyone voting for Obama because they think he's a pacifist in the Mahatma Gandhi mold is mistaken.

That said, you can be the biggest hawk in the world and still see that the invasion of Iraq was just about the worst idea imaginable.

[Johnny__Motown]

24. Limited engagement...... not occupation

[ecstatic]

28. I trust him much more with war decisions than I do McCain and Clinton

McCain and Clinton are confirmed warmongers. Obama will think first, before putting troops in harms way.

[invictus]

30. None of the above. I trust Obama to keep us out of war. n/t

[TheWraith]

31. You may disagree with them, but Bush 41 and Reagan didn't get us into any quagmires.

And JFK had committed to withdrawing all US advisors from Vietnam prior to his death. Which I suspect is what Obama's referring to--a lack of military interventionism and picking fights we can't win.

[Muttocracy]

40. hey - no context allowed - (see above)

[readmoreoften]

47. Fair enough. He'll only pick fights we can win. Acceptable reading of his position.

My definition of anti-war is a candidate who doesn't pick fights. Frankly, all he needed to say was "My foreign policy is a return to the realism of JFK." Why use the opportunity to designate the foreign policy of two presidents who waged utterly delusional cover wars against the people of Latin America as 'realistic.'

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. They got us into the MidEast quagmire by placing troops in SA and funding Al Qaeda in Afghanisrtan

In order to prop up Reagan's secret ally, Khoimeini, as an enemy to rally the American citizenry against their shared geo-strategic opponent, the Soviet Union, and to allow Reagan and the Khomeini regime to consolidate their domestic power by funding foreign wars against "the Great Satan" in the form of US proxy warriors (intended patsies) like Saddam and the mujahedeen.

[cooolandrew]

32. The anti war acndidate was DK of who is left Barack is th next best thing.

[cooolandrew]

33. The anti war cnadidate was DK of who is left Barack is the next best thing.

[Skidmore]

35. I feel confident that Obama will not take the country into war

unnecessarily. I believe he would need a very good reason to do so and he would work within the parameters of the Constitution and the law if a war was called for. I also believe he would take active steps to prevent wars.

[jody]

37. BO is a political chameleon, he'll "change" his position to whatever seems appropriate at the moment

and that means he often sends confusing signals as he did in this statement.

[JayFredMuggs]

39. Only to people who refuse to READ the full content

Oh, and you make yourself obvious which group of people you are part of.

This poll is skewed, biased, and not in any way a full display of options.

Even Obama would not vote in this biased poll.

What on Earth was the poster thinking by posting this ridiculous array of options which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with what Obama said?

Oh wait, it was posted by a Republican posing as a Hillary supporter, who has never read a full speech of either Hillary or Obama.

[readmoreoften]

60. As someone who just joined DU I think you should watch who you call a Republican.

Did you not even read where it says that I don't support Clinton and that I know she is not anti-war?
Do you not know the 'realistic' foreign policy initiatives started by Bush 41 and Reagan?

Guess not. More ad hominem arguments.

[stray cat]

43. I won't vote for someone who will not fight in some circumstances

[baldguy]

49. Then Obama's your candidate.

[stray cat]

52. everyone but perhaps kucinich fits

[readmoreoften]

51. Neither will I. But were Bush 41 and Reagan's circumstances acceptable is the question.

In fact, I'm not even anti-war. But I am very anti-war for the purpose of expanding neoliberalism and fighting those in sovereign countries who want a mixed economy.

[anonymous171]

61. I read an article about the fusion of Moralists and Militarists that created our current mess.

I think it was Time. I can't remember. I was a good read though.

[readmoreoften]

64. Our mess is quite a mess indeed.

I just am shocked that we have gone so far to the right that is it now acceptable to reference Bush 41 and Reagan as realists, particularly from a candidate with an antiwar following. I'll check out that article.

Thanks for the civil conversation. :)

[anonymous171]

69. No problem.

I guess Bush and Reagan were realists in all the wrong ways (greed,shameless self-interest, etc.) Dubya is an idealist in all the wrong ways (absolutism, "them-against-us") and Dick Cheney is just plain evil.

[readmoreoften]

71. That's hitting the nail on the head. /nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Sad indeed

Most Democratic Americans alive today don't even remember the battle over Neoliberalism and Globalization between 1989 and 2001.

They are too young to remember, much less be taught an any decent school about the endless string of proxy wars fought between 1900 and 1989 designed with the sole purpose of expanding US economic interests in accordance with open-borders, sweatshop-industry outposts to counter the interests of Russia, Japan and other industrial protectionist states that wanted access to global resources.

The fact that fascism and communism was involved was purely secondary
from the perspective of the US investor class who advise president at
the highest level on these matters.

They fostered the growth of ultra-nationalism worldwide because the
protectionist industrial grow from within model was a threat to US trade
interests as the inheritor of the British model as world's sole exporter
of high-grade finished goods.

We went to war literally everywhere to protect the right of US firms to
export goods and jobs overseas, and import capital with which to buy
back our own finished goods (on credit) and oil from the terrorist
client states we set up to "protect" our oil from Asia.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

62. Crafty poll

and interesting to see the responses.

The official game of the Obama adulants:



But did you forget those earmarks for hybrid hummers that Obama seeks? A cleaner, greener, meaner fighting machine.

That's the post-modern version of anti-war.

Of course he's not anti-war he has been very clear rhetorically and in his actions that he supports a hyper-militarized America. Heck in late 2007 in Foreign Affairs he outhawked Romney with his 5,000 word piece.

And read his speech to the CCGA.

He is definitely on board with The American Project.

[readmoreoften]

65. I read that speech. It's part of what frightens me.

I'm very concerned about both candidates. I feel like I don't have any options, frankly. The lesser of two evils meme is approaching total absurdity at this point for me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. The evil of two lessers = "You won't get a better deal from my opponent, trust me."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. None of the 3 candidates have the courage to be anti-war.

They all have the mindset that there are such things as "just wars".

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[readmoreoften]

73. Well, I think that there are just struggles but then again I'm not a pacifist.

I strongly support the EZLN, for example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. I agree with the EZLN's struggle.

I disagree with violence as a means.

[readmoreoften]

82. I don't think that they would've gotten anywhere without pushing into the cities of Chiapas.

They only fought to defend themselves against the military and haven't used their weapons since. After the Abejas (the pacifists who supported EZLN but didn't approve of fighting) were exiled, they ironically went to the EZLN for armed protection but the EZLN (ironically) could not be provoked into a battle with the US backed Paz y Justicia paramilitary or the government would have a pretext for annihilating them all. The result was the Acteal massacre (a murder of a number of Abejas women and children.) I feel that strict pacifism leads (in many contexts) to begging for protection from armed groups--in other words non-pacifism. Or it could lead to martyrdom.

Sorry if I'm telling you something that you already know :)

[boppers]

72. You forgot "People who don't demonize GHWB, Reagan, and JFK are evil".

Yeah, I'm voting based on rational arguments, not knee-jerk reactions to historic names and complex sets of decisions and policies, that in retrospect deserve both criticism and praise.

[readmoreoften]

78. Yes that makes you sound really 'grown up.' Do you also criticize people for 'demonizing' GWB?

If I mentioned, say Pol Pot, do you have a knee-jerk reaction? Do all leaders represent "complex sets of decisions and policies that in retrospect deserve both criticism and praise?"

1) A poll is not an argument. It's a set of questions.
2) Defend the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan in... say... Nicaragua. Having lived there, I'd love to hear your balanced, 'rational' opinion. Not interested in defending Iran-Contra, how about our support of right-wing paramilitary in Guatemala?

Sorry to offend your sensibilities with polemics, but you can justify anything via rational argument and you can postpone any moral judgment with claims of 'infinite complexity'.

[boppers]

93. Oh, I get your style of invective.

I just wanted to point it out for what it is.

As far as criticism and praise, Pol Pot deserves both. Hitler deserves both.

To deny them their humanity is self-denial at best. To simplify them into sound bites may be good political sloganeering, but it's bad for intelligent thought.

As to your points:
1) Creating intentionally argumentative poll questions is making an argument.
2. Defending Reagan's Nicauragua policy? To simplify it, it comes from a cold-war fear of socialist/nationalistic movements usurping existing domestic governments, and US government, (as well as private) financial and investment interests in the american hemisphere.

Two sides (many more acting groups, but simplifying for the argument) of questionable ethics and questionable merit were fighting for global power, and any side taken would have been one with painful consequences. Same problem with Guatemala, there were no real "good guys" to side with, so all that was left was either disengagement, or assisting the (arguably) lesser of evils. In some places, we (the US) sided with nationalists, in some, with socialists, in some, with religious fascists... it was all part of the cold war, keeping communist/socialist systems in check.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. Wow... OK

[boppers]

105. Trying to reduce a few hundred thousand incidents into a few paragraphs is never easy.

;)

[dailykoff]

75. JFK tried to ratchet down Vietnam, GHWB pulled out of Iraq, Reagan ended the cold war.

Okay in reality Reagan was a stooge and GHWB ordered the CIA to do all kinds of evil shit all over the world, but this is a political speech, not a policy. Of the three candidates, Obama is by far the least hawkish. That should be obvious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. At last, a "realistic" defense of Obama's remarks

It seems all the anti-war folks on DU have left GDP, or felt "why bother".

[Political Heretic]

76. Response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5314365&mesg_id=5314365

[stillcool]

77. Here' s how I read it...

Drawing on the example of the first Gulf War, Obama said that the first President Bush had "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

"Remember, people were saying why didn't you go into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein? The realists understood that that would be a nightmare. And it wasn't worth our national interests," Obama added.

He described this President Bush's world view on foreign policy as a big stick approach.

"Certainly George Bush's foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that because we are so militarily powerful we can dictate events around the world," he said. "If people don't like it doesn't matter because we are the biggest, toughest thing on the block. Now that is naïve."

Obama claimed that since 9-11, the way foreign policy was viewed had turned from one that understood the limits of military power and had placed a greater emphasis on diplomatic and economic strength to one that placed its sole emphasis on country's military might.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

[readmoreoften]

79. I agree with some of his statements, but others give me pause.

This for example, gives me pause: "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

I'm not quite sure how Gulf War 1 was realistic because I feel that the aims of the war were inscrutable. I think that the goal of that war WAS in fact to show our military might (i.e. rule with a Big Stick).

But I have not been even vaguely sympathetic of a US military project since WWII. Maybe Bosnia.

[stillcool]

86. I believe all wars in the middle-east ..

are about oil..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0204quest.htm

In Quest for Energy Security,
US Makes New Bet: on Democracy
By Andrew Higgins
Wall Street Journal
February 4, 2004

In April 1975, America's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, sent a confidential cable to Washington denouncing as "criminally insane" an idea then being floated in the media: America should seize Saudi oil fields to break an Arab oil cartel and ensure a supply of cheap energy to fuel the U.S. economy.

Scoffing at the bravado of what he called America's "New Hawks," he warned that any attempt to take Arab oil by force would lead to world-wide fury and a protracted guerrilla war. This "could bring only disaster to the United States and to the world," he wrote.
-----------------
FDR and the King

America has been fretting about dependence on foreign oil since the early 1940s, when Interior Secretary Harold Ickes wrote a gloomy article titled "We're Running out of Oil!" It warned: "If there should be a World War III, it would have to be fought with someone else's petroleum." Soon thereafter, geologist Everette Lee DeGolyer returned to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and reported that "the center of gravity of world oil production is shifting ... to the Middle East."

With this in mind, Franklin D. Roosevelt, though seriously ill, made a stop on his journey home from the 1945 Yalta conference to meet the Saudi king, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. Their encounter on a battleship in the Suez Canal established bonds that, for more than half a century, would tie the two countries: oil and security. It also raised an issue that would divide them for just as long -- establishment of a Jewish state. Roosevelt wanted it in Palestine. The king suggested Jews get land in Germany.

-------------------------------------------------
Saudi Arabia also disappointed. On Oct. 17, 1973, Mr. Kissinger met with other top U.S. officials to discuss the Yom Kippur Arab-Israeli war and possibility of oil-supply disruptions. Reporting on a meeting held earlier in the day with Arab envoys, he described the Saudi foreign minister as a "good little boy," according to recently released transcripts, and predicted confidently: "We don't expect an oil cutoff in the next few days." Minutes later, an aide rushed in with a bulletin: Saudi and other Arab oil producers had announced an immediate cut in output. Prices leapt 70% overnight and later quadrupled. The U.S. sank into a recession. Mr. Nixon launched a plan to end all imports by 1980. It flopped: Imports rose 40% by the target date. Mr. Kissinger turned to the Soviet Union for help, offering wheat in return for oil. The "bushels for barrels" plan fizzled.

The Military Option

Behind the scenes, officials mulled a more robust response to Arab cuts. Ambassador Akins says he knew something was afoot after a barrage of articles appeared championing war against Saudi Arabia. Particularly belligerent was one that appeared in Harper's under the byline Miles Ignotus, a pen name. Titled "Seizing Arab Oil," it argued that "the only countervailing power to OPEC's control of oil is power itself -- military power."


Britain's National Archives last month released several secret reports on America's likely response to the oil crisis. A December 1973 assessment by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee said Washington might use subversion to "replace the existing rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi with more amenable men" or try "gun-boat diplomacy" to intimidate existing rulers. But an invasion to seize Arab oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking," the report added. It said Mr. Schlesinger had told Britain's ambassador "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."


Relations With Iraq

When Mr. Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Washington initially stayed aloof, but grew worried when the tide turned and Iraq faced defeat. The U.S. then provided Iraq with satellite pictures and other help. Donald Rumsfeld, as President Reagan's special Mideast envoy, visited Baghdad twice. He discussed the idea, never followed up, of building a pipeline out of Iraq through Jordan. "I noted that Iraq's oil exports were important," Mr. Rumsfeld reported after a 1983 meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, according to a cable obtained by the National Security Archive. Mr. Rumsfeld visited again the following year, despite an uproar over Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

A 1988 national-security directive enshrined the wooing of Iraq as policy. "Normal relations" with the Hussein regime, it said, "would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East." But this courtship, too, ended in tears: Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, seized its oil fields and began moving troops toward Saudi Arabia. Once again, a partner had become an enemy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. And that is realist. By siding with Reagan/Bush on realism, hes saying he doesnt mind resource wars

He understands the doctrine laid down by Kissinger.

Brzezinski is ON HIS CAMPAIGN for fuck's sake.

Of course Clinton is even worse.

[stillcool]

104. I don't know that there has ..

been any President since WWI who has not taken military action in favor of business interests somewhere. It is who we are. I don't know how we as a country could get out from under the shadow of the Defense Industry/Global Corporations. The convergence is way too far out of my realm of understanding. But I can certainly understand the penchant for war when we make so many weapons. I just hope that some one can bring back some balance between the needs of the country and the wants of Empire.

[goletian]

83. hes anti dumb war. not war in general. - nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. This poll breakdown saddens me. DU is "showing their ass" as my grandma would say

So this is where the Reagan Democrats went.

Right back into the fold after 2000 with fresh new ideas
about what it means to be an acceptable liberal.

[LWolf]

87. Other:

Obama is not anywhere close to anti-war. He is a hawk.

I am not a supporter of Obama, so I did not vote in the poll.

[dailykoff]

90. Here's how Tom Hayden, an Obama supporter, puts it:

(paraphrasing from interviews I've heard on Pacifica): Obama is not anti-war enough, but he's far more receptive to the anti-war movement than McCain or Mama Warbucks, so he's the one to endorse, but it's up to us the electorate to push him to get us out of Iraq and out of the permanent war economy generally, so getting him elected is just the first step, but an important one.

[madrchsod]

102. at least old tom has`t lost his reasoning

obama needs help to see the light...

[Occam Bandage]

103. Obama's not antiwar. He's anti-stupid-war.