So, tell me: Why is it ok for Obama to align his foreign policy with that of the GOP?

[BigBearJohn]

Barack Obama: "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

SOURCE: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=106059

TRUE BELIEF, OR A FEINT TO APPEAL TO GOP CROSS-OVER VOTERS?
Hope Abandoned: Obama Stands Up for Murder and Plunder

Obama is doing two things here, reaching out to two very different audiences, on different wavelengths. First, for the hoi polloi, he is simply pandering in the most shameless way imaginable, throwing out talismans for his TV-addled audience to comfort themselves with: "You like JFK? I'll be like him! You like Reagan? I'll be like him too! You like the first George Bush? Hey, I'll be just like him as well!" This is a PR tactic that goes all the way back to St. Paul the spinmeister, who boasted of his ability to massage his message and "become all things to all men." Obama has long proven himself a master of this particular kind of political whoredom -- much like Bill Clinton, in fact, another champion of "bipartisan foreign policy" who for some strange reason got left off Obama's list of role models.

But beyond all the rubes out there, Obama is also signaling to the real masters of the United States, the military-corporate complex, that he is a "safe pair of hands" -- a competent technocrat who won't upset the imperial applecart but will faithfully follow the 60-year post-war paradigm of leaving "all options on the table" and doing "whatever it takes" to keep the great game of geopolitical dominance going strong.

Obama is telling us -- and the war-profiteering powers-that-be -- that he will give us "realistic policies" like those of John Kennedy. These include his steady march into the quagmire of Vietnam, and the backing of a deadly coup in Saigon to replace one brutal junta with another; greenlighting successful coups in Guyana, the Dominican Republic and Iraq, where the CIA helped the Baath Party come to power; greenlighting the spectacularly unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, not to mention the terrorist operations and assassination attempts there.

More of this kind of thing, then, from Obama when he reaches the White House?

Or we could cite Reagan's ardent support for mass-murdering militarist regimes in Central and South America; the arming and funding of the Contra insurgent army in Nicaragua, which received CIA training in terrorist tactics. Or the Iran-Contra affair, which saw Reagan and Bush ship weapons to the extremist Iranian regime in return for cash which they then gave to their Contra terrorist militia, in flagrant violation of the law. Or Reagan's stupid and pointless invasion of Grenada, which he undertook solely to cover up the embarrassment of his stupid and pointless intervention in Lebanon, where 241 American soldiers were killed after having been dropped into the middle of a multi-sided civil war. Or Reagan's vast expansion of a policy begun under Jimmy Carter of arming, funding, training and organizing a global network of violent Islamic extremists -- a "foreign policy" masterstroke that is still paying dividends today. (Quite literally paying dividends for investors in the defense, security and military servicing industries.)

SOURCE: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/033108Floyd.shtml

[FrenchieCat]

1. Ooh Goodie! A thread to hide!

But before the thread leaves my site, I will point out the individual who voted against the Cluster Bomb BAN, and that wasn't Barack Obama.

Gotta go now! Bye thread!

[goldcanyonaz]

10. Present!

[Clintonista2]

20. God forbid you should have to debate the issues

At least you didn't call the OP racist.

[indimuse]

43. 2 -f*cking -shaaaayyyyyyyy

these Obamacans are so predictable! I think they have comr o the realization...THEY ARE LOSING!

[Enrique]

30. ok, but then don't complain after he becomes president

fair enough?

[Unsane]

2. Is it anything like how Hillary wants to start WW3 if Israel is attacked?

see the last debate? Hillary is to the RIGHT of McCain on FP.

[anonymous171]

3. Meanwhile, Hillary's Foreign Policy is a continuation of Dubya's and McCain's.

Old-school conservative and liberal foreign policy is vastly superior to neocon foreign policy.

[babylonsister]

4. How about using diplomacy for the first time in forever, BBJ? What's

your problem with that? And yes, I know you won't respond. This is 'flamebait' from you, you post shit daily, and never respond. So do so, for me, for a change. You go down daily in my opinion of you for these crap posts that you refuse to respond to.

[Aloha Spirit]

6. Thanks for the heads up. I was about to post something insightful about Op. Desert Storm.

[BigBearJohn]

12. When you stop attacking me personally, I will respond to you.

I still love you INSPITE of everything you've written.
I still think you're a helluva lady and NOTHING you
can say will destroy that.

I realize your investment in this campaign and I don't
begrudge you anything you post.

I will always love you -- even if you leave me because
of this campaign.

[babylonsister]

14. Thank you. Now google Karl Rove/Bill & Hillary Clinton. It's as

plain as the nose on your face. If you can't see it, I'm very sorry.

And I love you, too, but I disagree vehemently.

[BigBearJohn]

17. I'm sorry. I have tried very hard to move over to your side. I just can't.

To tell you the truth ---

I would rather vote for Al Sharpton or Harold Ford, Jr..
These guys knock my socks off with their incredible intelligence.
Obama simply does NOT impress me and I honestly believe
that the GOP will chew him up and spit him out before
2008.

[babylonsister]

21. Okay...

thank you for finally expressing yourself. Are you a big Clinton fan? You don't think the GOP will eat her alive, too, nevermind the big dawg and his connections? And why do you feel compelled to TRASH one of our candidates? I have shunned putting up b.s. posts about anyone from my own POV, but have posted other people's opinions that mirror my own. I also have an opinion, obviously;), but you've been making up stories that aren't legit. What's up with that, and the vitriol?


And your choice of people you respect more than Obama is interesting. Ford is the head of the DLC, and Sharpton? He's a 'mouth', though he's a smart one. I enjoyed him in 04, not so much recently for different reasons that don't matter now. Yes, they are both smart. I'm sorry you don't see the brains in Obama. Maybe you should try to read a book he actually wrote (vs. ghost writers); that might give you some insight.

PS For the record, this is interesting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5598116&mesg_id=5598116

[BigBearJohn]

24. I can remember Barack's speech at the 2004 convention. I was floored by it.

I thought, "Wow. This guy is great. I'll bet you anything he is going
to be our first black president."

I was so thoroughly impressed by him. No kidding. I honestly was.
I too was stirred by his oratory.

However, as time went on, his positions on various votes turned me off.
I felt like he was on the side of the corporations. I can't remember
the particular instance right now, but there was a crucial Senate vote
and I thought for sure he would vote on our side and he didn't. I also
did not like his support of Lieberman.

I am SUBLIMELY aware of Hillary's faults, but I subscribe to the old Irish
saying, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know - It is
better to deal with something bad you know than with something new you
don't; the new thing might be even worse."

I was watching black commentator, Don Lemon on CNN tonight:

He is interviewing Bob Johnson (Black Entertainment Founder), who is
supporting Hillary Clinton. During the interview, Johnson says he does not
believe Barack Obama can win the White House. He doubts that Obama can beat
McCain but thinks Hillary is the best person to go up against McCain in November.

If a billionaire like Johnson is against Obama (as are several other black leaders)
why is it such a crime for me to support Hillary? My life and the life of my
family was doing extremely well during the Clinton administration. Why would I
not want to return to those days?

You do bring up a point about not trashing a democrat. However, I have seen posts
of yours that trash Hillary, no?

I would be totally willing to play nice around here, but nobody else seems to want to.

[babylonsister]

49. Still tryiing to play nice, but riddle me this:

Your response blew me away; now I know why that man of dubious intent has been used by the Clinton camp. You DO realize Johnson was trying to sway blacks to vote rethug, don't you, and that he is one himself? If not, read this:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/13_thw.html

And why you would take the word of someone like him versus John Lewis, the esteemed Rep. who used to work in the civil rights movement, is beyond me. Lewis switched his allegiance when he realized the possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(politician)

I'm not arguing with you, but your role models leave something to be desired. As for 'the Clinton years', have you been impressed by the big dawg? I haven't. And the Clinton years weren't as peachy as you imagined. I could go on, and on, and on but won't. And I do wish you'd weigh your reasoning.

I have been known to reiterate my opinion on here;) but I've never been accused of making up fake scenarios to prove my point. I pretty much post links and opine; I don't trash anyone just because...

[BigBearJohn]

53. Well, we obviously have different realities on this. It's ok with me

if you believe as you believe. I would never dream
of insulting you. I respect you. But just because
I respect you, it doesn't necessarily follow that
I must agree with you on all points. I have many
great friends with whom I disagree on many many points.
We simply agree to disagree.

In the end, I am supremely aware that you are one of
the finest people on this planet and you want the
absolute best for your family and mankind. I honestly
admire you.

I hope when this is over we can still be friends.
I do adore you, even though I don't agree with you always.

Love,
John

[burythehatchet]

48. Then do not vote for Obama under any circumstances

not this year and not for his re-election. JUST STOP POSTING BULLSHIT

[BigBearJohn]

54. I will when you do.

[goldcanyonaz]

5. Cuz, he's Obama. How dare you!

[thoughtcrime1984]

7. Watch what your girl has to say about the Middle East

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5582335&mesg_id=5582462


Now THAT is a neo-con if I ever did see one!

[anonymous171]

9. Obama embraces old school conservative and liberal foreign policy

Hillary embraces failed Neoconservative foreign policy.

[cliffordu]

8. Another tossed salad approach to 'investigative' reportage here

at DU -

Just having another half-truth day, eh??

:patriot:

[boppers]

11. The GOP wasn't always playing cowboy, like shrub and Hillary advocate.

That's why.

Next question?

[TahitiNut]

13. I wonder what Joe Biden has to say about that.

:shrug:

[dkf]

15. Hillary is to the right of the neocons.

She is proposing that the US obligate itself to use massive retaliation against any country in the Middle East that attacks any other country who agrees not to pursue nuclear weapons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5592415&mesg_id=5592415

[BayouBengal07]

16. Well, let's see...

"Barack Obama: "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said."

George H. W. Bush amassed the largest coalition in the history of modern warfare (including the USSR and Arab regimes) to quickly push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait...then he stopped because he know not to try to occupy Iraq.

Ronald Reagan may have talked tough, but in the end it was his cooperation with Gorbachev that helped end the Cold War without firing a shot. It was "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," not "I'm going to send the US army in to do it."

That sounds like a terrible legacy to follow upon...

[anonymous171]

18. Hillary's Legacy:

"We'll be greeted as Liberators!"
"Bring it on!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. As opposed to Hilly who voted with McCain for Bush's war?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq...

Clinton says insurgency is failing
BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.



"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.

The five-member U.S. Congressional delegation arrived in Baghdad as a series of suicide bombings and explosions killed 55 people, including an American solder. Much of the violence was aimed at Shiite Muslims, commemorating Ashoura, the festival marking the death of the founder of their sect 14 centuries ago.

"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

[hfojvt]

22. sounds like a good way to sell an end to PNAC and neo-con policies

But according to the author of the article you posted, the only other choices are the "political whoredom" of Clinton's "bi-partisan policy" or a "straight-talking" war monger.

[anonymous171]

23. McCain is for a continuation of Neoconservative Policies

Clinton is for an expansion of them. Kinda scary...

[guyanakoolaid]

25. The hypocrisy is simply dripping off of this post. HILLARY VOTED FOR WAR... TWICE

Obama is the only one common sense enough to talk about going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, since they after all the ones who attacked us. Hillary, meanwhile, has shown TWICE how poorly she handles the "3AM call"... by voting with the neocons for the IWR and voting with the neocons on Kyl/Lieberman.

Also, it's more than hilarious that your post doesn't even bother to slander Obama, instead choosing to slander every president Obama names.

Hillary is a warmonger, and she has lost, you're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. Probably sooner. Like by Wednesday.

[BigBearJohn]

33. And you don't think Obama is warmonger? Read his promises...

he plans to TOTALLY strengthen the military.
Which means he will be contributing to the military complex.

[guyanakoolaid]

50. I would expect every president to contribute to the military complex

We need some defence, we do live in the real world. But I would also expect a president with the balls to stand up to the military industrial complex and steer us away from Iraq and towards Pakistan where our true enemies are. After voting for the disastrous IWR, Hillary could have shown she knew she was wrong, instead, she placated the military industrial complex's and the neoncon's whims and supported the phony Kyl/Lieberman runup to another needless war with Iran.

It's not hard to see which of the two Democrats in this race is most in bed with the military industrial complex and the neocons, nobody is going to ignore the facts and believe it's Obama except the most ardent of Clinton supporters. I'm surprised you're not only not ashamed, but apparently still ignorant of this fact.

[eridani]

26. You can't be recognized by our imperial elite as a "serious" presidential candidate--

--unless you agree to maintain US imperial power. Every post-WW II president has bought into that, though Eisenhower had a few reservations. That's why we wound up with the two most conservative candidates as our finalists. However, Obama is making far less use of Rethug memes like "commander in chief" and stating that the Rethug candidate is more qualified than a fellow Dem for this role.

[democracy1st]

27. Its going to take both parties to get out of this mess

[earth mom]

28. K & R! nt

[AtomicKitten]

29. Flaming cheese since you seem fine with Hillary's YES vote on the IWR & Kyl-Lieberman.

[Enrique]

31. this article criticizes Clinton as well

criticizes both Hillary and Bill's foreign policy.

Did you read it?

[AtomicKitten]

35. my comment was on the selective/faux outrage implied on this issue

did you read that?

[Enrique]

41. I don't see outrage

what I see is that the article specifically criticizes Clinton along with Obama.

You might be imagining the outrage.

[AtomicKitten]

47. you're too cute by half.

[intaglio]

32. Come on BBJ, you can do better!

Because the type of foreign policy he espouses is engagement not confrontation (and you know it). Yes, it aligns with the foreign policy of some GOP presidents but it also aligns with the policy of Democratic presidents

[BigBearJohn]

34. He panders to the military complex just like the best of them....

Just wait and see... if by some miracle he does win,
you'll see... just wait... you'll see.

[intaglio]

36. BigBear, you're so nearly there

You know that "you'll see" argument is foolish.

[BigBearJohn]

37. You're right... my eyes are heavy... time to sleep... resistance is futile..

resistance is futile... resistance is futile...
must submit... resistance is futile.. must submit...

[intaglio]

51. Lol

:toast:

[merh]

46. Go read what Hillary said about her "umbrella of security"

for the middle east and the "massive retalition" for anyone that dares to penetrate it. I quoted her words from the debate in post 44.

Tell me how that position differs from the GOP.

[dbmk]

38. As a non-USA citizen

I say:
(Well, first and foremost let me say your question is worded in the classic "have you stopped beating your wife" way. Minus points for that. See 1) )

1) I don't see it as aligning himself with the GOP. There is nothing in the way he has outlined his positions that aligns itself with how the GOP are doing things and have been doing them for the last 8 years.

2) That aside I think its ok, because the foreign policy he has outlined is sound. It signals deliberation and respect and acknowledging that the sledgehammer politics of Bush and Co is one giant mistake. In short it is the right way to go about it.
And if that is the case, what does it matter who did it that way also? The moment it becomes more important to separate you from certain entities than doing what is right, you should sit down, have a drink and take a long good look in the mirror.

Let me ask back at the OP; Do you think his ideas are right or wrong? That is the real question.

The question is at stands is an excellent example of the obnoxious and unnecessary partisanship that Obama wants to do away with, because it runs counter to getting things done. For no good reason.

[bowens43]

39. Oh boy! More desperate nonsense!!!

Diplomacy is NEVER inappropriate.

[rodeodance]

40. Obama is very desperate --He will pander to any group for votes

[LWolf]

42. It's not.

Another of the many reasons I can't stomach him as a nominee.

I don't expect that you'll get any substantive answers from his supporters, though.

[merh]

44. LOL - I keep telling you guys

You need to open your eyes and face the facts.

Bill Clinton aligned his foreign policy with that of the GOP, he did not alter our nation's foreign policy in the middle east and he continued and expanded the "no fly zones" in Iraq. Those "no fly zones" were violations of the UN Charter (international law) and the cease fire - they were not necessary for our safety and they were not necessary to implement the UN sanctions. Those no fly zones are what allowed for the "acts of aggression" arguments used to tell our congress critters that Saddam was the bad ass.

Bill supported the first Gulf War and he supported the Iraq invasion. Most of us were waiting anxiously for him to say it was bad, he didn't. Hillary voted for it giving the impression that what she knew from her husband's admin gave her some inside poop and some credibility to the threats.

Hillary lists Reagan as one of her favorite president on her website.

Oh and Hillary is a warmonger, imperialist. From the debate the other night.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.

Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

More of the same but with more to prove.

[mmonk]

45. What he is saying is that George W. bush's policy is radical

and is unlike Reagan's (which wasn't as overt). He's drawing a distinction of how radical bush's policy is. With people like Samantha Power guiding foreign policy, it won't be like Reagan's. It will be very involved in international consensus.

[redqueen]

52. He isn't to the right of Hillary.

That's all I need to know.