"Iraq War Foes Get Short Shrift"

[wisteria]

I think we have been had. Anyone who thinks our overseas policies are going to change for the better, better think again.



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/112408.html


"By and large, however, Washington’s Republican neocons appear to have bounced off the mat quite nicely after getting pounded in the Nov. 4 election.

In just three weeks, they have seen one of their favorites, Sen. Joe Lieberman, keep a powerful chairmanship despite campaigning against Obama – and many of their neocon-lite allies on the Democratic side are positioning themselves for key jobs under Obama."

"There’s even been shabby treatment for establishment figures who took political risks for Obama and supported his plans for an Iraq War withdrawal timetable."

According to press reports, hawkish Democrat Hillary Clinton is in line to be named Secretary of State and longtime Bush Family loyalist Robert Gates is likely to be retained as Secretary of Defense.

"Clinton was a leading Democratic backer of the Iraq War until she launched her bid for the Democratic nomination. Gates was a key figure in “politicizing” intelligence at the CIA in the 1980s and returned to government in 2006 to salvage Bush’s foundering Iraq War by escalating U.S. troop levels and opposing a timetable for withdrawal.

In other words, Obama might have had trouble finding two political figures more representative of “the mindset that got us into war” – a Democrat who supported war to look tough and a Republican who put career advancement and ideology over everything."

[political_Dem]

1. That's why these picks are very troublesome.

I don't know how we can have a change in international policy when we don't have people who are in favor of challenging the ways of the Bush regime. I guess "shock and awe" will never leave.

[wisteria]

2. Exactly. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. Won't Obama ultimately be in charge? Won't his cabinet have to

follow his orders? I mean, we don't need a bunch of rookies feeling their way while trying to develop international policy, or domestic policy for that matter. I think "heckuva job Brownie", and the Republican rookies & loyalists in the Justice Dept. taught us that we need strong, experienced career people in these positions.

[wisteria]

7. But, if all he hears is one side and their arguments it makes it very difficult for us to get

through.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. I'm satisfied that Obama is no hawk, but he's no dove either. He's

made it quite clear that he wants to go after Bin Laden, and that was well before the first vote was cast. I trust his judgement.

[wisteria]

15. Then why is he surrounding himself with hawks and those who want to continue

what he has said is the wrong path.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. I can't answer that, and neither can you. You're speculating, and so am I.

I realize that some on the left think there is never cause for war, I'm just not of that opinion. I guess I'm more of a pragmatist like Obama, with a dash of idealism.

[wisteria]

23. I don't think that, sometimes war is necessary. I am talking about policies that

promote one way over another.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Well, it's my understanding that Congress declares war. Let's just wait & see? Obama

has to make it perfectly clear that he will absolutely protect America's interests at home and abroad. For a lot of people, his picks so far seem to indicate that he is willing to do just that. Perhaps Obama has become privvy to some classified information that he didn't have in the run-up to the election. We don't know what he's seen, and the right is just waiting for some international incident to pounce on him. And from the looks of it, the left can't wait to pounce either. I don't envy his position.

He has explained time and again that we are particularly vulnerable in this transition period. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have anti-war advisors, but I still trust his judgement, ultimately.

[wisteria]

56. But, if all he hears is the droning of those who have an agenda

they want to carry out- would he be wise enought or even independant enought to seek other input?

[Shiver]

78. One thing...

Cabinet posts have less direct access to the President than the advisers who work in the White House and see him on a near-daily basis. Several progressives and non-hawks have been picked for these advisory posts.

[laugle]

63. Just maybe he is trying his best to protect our country!

Who do you think could do a better job, besides Kerry of course?

[bvar22]

36. I question his judgement.

Escalating the WAR in Afghanistan is NOT good judgment.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Question away. It's your right. Doesn't change the fact that "I" trust him implicitly. (nt)

[tigereye]

59. what I have understood is he still intends to have a strong link to the grass=

roots movement that elected him.

So that fear may not be accurate. :shrug:

[patrice]

3. I am pretty disappointed, but still hoping Obama will make the difference.

I wonder about that though, since I understand that he is not an ideologue, but is rather a pragmatist instead, which means that he will make use of whatever happens to accomplish something that can feasibly be called what he said he'd accomplish.

What this adds up to is that the anti-War Movement must up the pressure somehow.

[wisteria]

5. We will have our job cut out for us and it is even more difficult because

those closest to him now on this issue do not share our POV. We have no one representing our side anymore it seems. IMO, Kerry would have been a good balance between Obama and Biden.

[patrice]

14. War is Slavery. Let Freedom ring!!! nt

[wisteria]

16. Yes, let freedom ring! n/t

[democrattotheend]

6. Honestly, I don't think Clinton is that much of a hawk

If I recall she kind of gave some mealy-mouthed excuse for her vote for AUMF. I think she voted for the war not because she really believed in it, but because she was a woman planning to run for president who felt she had to prove she was as tough as the boys. That doesn't excuse her vote, but it could mean that her ideology going forward is not as at odds with Obama's as some people think.

[wisteria]

10. Clinton likes to look tough because she know very little really about foreign policy matters.

She is on the armed services committee one of the most hawkish committees in Congress and she is know as a hawk. I see no reason for her to change her strips.

[patrice]

11. It would help if she'd talk to us straight and in fullness about that vote. nt

[wisteria]

13. She has had plenty of opportunity to do so and made a half hearted effort to

say her vote on the IWR was wrong, but it wasn't at all convincing.

[patrice]

17. It has been true all along that we are NOT her constituency. She listens to others. nt

[laugle]

64. Oh please............Kerry voted for the IWR!! You know better than that--shame!

The people pick the president and the president picks his cabinet. And no matter how much you lament, it won't change anything.............

[Dragonfli]

18. Depends on definition I guess - Iraq Res. Cluster bombs - Iran -Hawkish?

Not Counting Cheer-leading the war in Iraq, there are some things that some may consider Hawkish. Or Maybe it could be called "Centrist Dove". Perhaps Its all just aggressive peace!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html


<snip>

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban. Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electability.




http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html


<snip>

Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth

Randall Rolph said he came to New Hampton, Iowa, on Sunday to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with an open mind about whether to support her candidacy. After a tough exchange over Iran, he left saying he had ruled her out.

Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

[patrice]

21. Isn't declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorists about the same thing as

someone else declaring the U.S. Marine Corp is a terrorist organization?

[Dragonfli]

26. I don't Know, but I am sure it was taken that way

I think it would be more like declaring a special unit terrorists, like the Rangers or Delta.
The premise is the same though. It is essentially saying the Iranian Govt. that is responsible for it's military forces is a terrorist entity (could be bombed "legally" then).

Diplomacy YaY!

[patrice]

8. But, more troubling than what happens in Iraq is the fact the neocon message stands.

The People were used in order to make Dems & Reps look politically tough and they're going to get away with it. Is there NO accountability? Probably not.

I wonder what they'll get us into next???

[wisteria]

12. Accountability I think is a thing of the past. I share your concerns. n/t

[scarletwoman]

20. I don't know why anyone is surprised. Obama clearly signalled all along that he subscribed to the

ongoing Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment view of the world.

He never declined to use the phrase, "War on Terror". He talked about military incursions over Pakistan's border. He pledged his fealty to AIPAC. He talked about the "grave risk" of a nuclear Iran. He made all the conventional noises about "dictator" Hugo Chavez.

I always assumed that what we'd get with Obama, foreign policy-wise, would simply be a more efficient manager for the Empire. I don't feel like I've "been had" at all.

sw

[wisteria]

22. Well, I was expecting a new path, a visionary and a better way of doing things.

I haven't seen any of those things in Obama. You can listen and take the best of your opposition, but you don't have to surround yourself with them at the expense of those who are visionary and progressive.

[patrice]

24. Or you could at least get SOME balance. nt

[Dragonfli]

30. I've Advocated balance, Unfortunately some have taken this wrong

Reasonable people have supported what I was advocating, or at least not taken offense by it.
Others have had harsher criticism of this view. Mostly claiming it was whining or attacking our party.

This saddens me as I only intend to stop supporting my party if the balance isn't reached somehow.
My cross the line items would be pre-emptive war or any type of imperialism, or an abandonment of the lower classes to favor rich.

One line I will not allow to be crossed by any party is lack of support for constitutional liberties.
This whole gay hate/separation of church and state thing has me just as concerned as the above two.

I still hope that the cabinet choices will not mean what it could mean because I really, really like Obama.
I so much want him to be the great man I know he could.

Also a civil liberty based non-warlike progressive party would be so hard to grow from scratch out of Independents Greens and myself.

[patrice]

32. I hear you about growin' 'em from scratch. Love my Greens friends but

they're as bad as the Libertarians when it comes to getting organized! Though if they continue to pursue paper ballots counted in public and instant run off voting, that will go a good way toward getting themselves organized too.

[Dragonfli]

34. I agree completely

If organizing Democrats is like herding cats, organizing Greens is like herding butterflies.
I think there is some hope for them with paper ballots and run-off voting as well but the fact remains they will have to slowly grow the party via local elections, slowly working their way up the ladder to national.

Most of them have very similar views to my own so I like to support individual Greens that deserve it locally whenever possible.

[scarletwoman]

29. It's not realistic to expect the "Leader of the Free World" to overturn the whole global

power paradigm. It's a deep and complex web of relationships -- look at what happened to JFK when he tried to untangle some of it.

If the Left ever wants to make any real headway in changing how the world works, it has to work outside of electoral politics to create change. True change doesn't come from the top down, it has to come from the bottom, from the People.

sw

[patrice]

27. I know, I know, I know. I picked up on all of that stuff as it was all coming down.

I started out supporting Gov. Richardson for his Iraq platform. Then it turned into anyone but Hillary. I was having mis-givings all along because of all of the crossovers; was I supposed to believe ALL of those folks were/are anti-War? Not!! I dread seeing my (brilliant) young nephew over Thanksgiving. He bugged me about Obama the whole campaign. He doesn't believe in enabling them, so he didn't vote for President, just did all of the down-ticket stuff. He's going to be saying a bunch of "I told you so" about this cabinet.

[scarletwoman]

33. Well, I voted for Obama because, when it comes right down to it, voting is pretty painless.

And I took my cue from something that Chris Floyd wrote way back at the start of election campaign in a discussion about voting/not voting.

Acknowledging that the two parties are basically two heads of the same beast, it comes down to who might be more likely to mitigate some small part of the ongoing damage brought upon us by the corporatocracy.

It's a small thing, but I think that a chance to alleviate some suffering -- even just a little -- is worth the small act of voting. I didn't vote for some grand vision, I voted for more efficiency on the part of the Owner class; that maybe fewer people will be run over in the short term if the traffic signals are in better working order on the road to destruction.

Peace,
sw

[Generator]

50. Well Obama was never my pick so

I haven't been had. That would have been Edwards. OH that is bad enough but I digress. But VERY CLEARLY I remember the ads during the primary that Obama ran in Oregon-

"We can end a war." And all those YOUNG,hopeful, adoring faces in the crowd. Change. Belief. Those were the Obama words. Well they will have been had and they don't even know it yet. I knew it the second I heard the words Hillary Clinton for SOS. And the fact that John Brennan was even EVEN on a goddamn LIST is too much for me. But again I will take any crumb Obama throws us-if one life is saved, one less person tortured that's about all I expect.

[AtomicKitten]

25. I just want Obama to keep his promise and have troops out in 16 months.

I am concerned about some of his appointments, but I will wait to see how he governs.

I must say it is downright distressing to see the neocons jump for joy at the disposition of the Lieberman and Clinton situations. Yikes.

It leaves me somewhere between :scared: and :puke:.

[wisteria]

31. Yeah, I live in a state of how my stomach turns. n/t

[Bucky]

35. I'll judge him by his works. If he accomplishes dovy things with a hawky staff, I'll be content

But yes, it's making me a bit antsy. At least it answers the old question of whither DU under a Democratic government.

[Radical Activist]

38. I think our foreign policy is going to change.

Not even Clinton liked what Bush was doing. Obama knows why we elected him. There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. After the past 8 years, I'm tired of being cynical. Your negative predictions are unrealistic and unhelpful.

[dailykoff]

39. Do you have any idea how delusional that sounds?

"Not even Clinton liked what Bush was doing"? Then why the hell did she repeatedly endorse it with her votes and her silence? "Obama knows why we elected him"? Possibly but if he does he obviously doesn't give a shit. We didn't elect him to roll over on his back and let the neocon stooges we DIDN'T elect take charge of our foreign policy. Epic fail, to borrow a phrase.

[BeFree]

72. He rolled over on his back?

Obama rolled over on his back? And what, played possum? And Obama doesn't give a shit about why he got elected? I've seen some dirty stuff flung at Obama, but mostly it came from freepers, and now it stinks up DU.

Just what, I wonder, are you trying to prove?

[Radical Activist]

76. How exactly did he roll over on his back even before taking office?

This is just speculative chicken little bullshit. Obama is an intelligent person who will take advice from many viewpoints and make his own decisions.

Hillary's vote for the war is one of the reasons I didn't support her in the primary but she did frequently criticize Bush, despite her vote.

The fact that you're ready to call Obama a failure before he even takes office says a lot more about you than it says about Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

40. "We have been had" = "Obama is doing exactly what he said he would."

[dailykoff]

41. He said he'd roll back tax cuts for the super rich. Now he says he won't.

That's hypocrisy you can believe in and before you start spinning here's a link to a WSJ article confirming it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/23/obama-aides-suggest-rollback-of-bush-tax-cuts-could-be-delayed/

[Occam Bandage]

42. He said he'd roll back tax cuts. He's still going to do so.

He didn't say he'd do so before they expired in 2010. In fact, he claimed several times on the trail that he was going to let them expire.

[dailykoff]

43. Axelrod told Fox that "Obama was considering delaying the tax increase"

according to the WS Journal. If that's what he'd promised in the first place, he wouldn't need to consider a dealy, would he?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to stop pretending you don't get it.

[Occam Bandage]

45. That's a pretty weak defense of that position. I mean, this is an OMG MAJOR ISSUE

HUGE FLIPFLOP, so you'd think you'd be able to find the Damning Quote that Obama's backtracking on. Preferably a Damning Quote made before the economy went to shit, ruining everyone's plans for everything.

[dailykoff]

47. Just another broken promise. Don't worry your hairdo about it.

There'll be another bailout for you to cheerlead any minute.

[Occam Bandage]

49. And you still can't find the promise that was "broken." Oh well.

I'm sure you'll find one someday, and you'll get your outrage fix.

[dailykoff]

51. Nobody expects you to get it. (n/t)

[Occam Bandage]

52. No. I actually look for evidence of wrongdoing before I react.

Therefore, one could indeed expect that I would not be OMG OUTRAGED over Obama keeping a campaign promise. See, I actually paid attention to what Obama said, as opposed to what I hoped Obama would say.

[wisteria]

58. I think you are right. n/t

[beachmom]

69. Um, hello. We are talking whether they will be rolled back in '09 or let it sunset naturally in '11

McCain promised he would make the tax cuts permanent.

Nothing has changed, except the fact that it would be downright stupid to raise taxes right in the middle of a spiraling economy.

[bridgit]

44. There will be many broken hearts on the left in the not so distant future...

[Occam Bandage]

46. And I welcome it.

Anyone dumb enough to not bother researching a candidate's positions on the issues deserves to have their heart broken when they realize that their fantasies were based on nothing more than their own wishes.

[bridgit]

48. That's a yeppers, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a'hop'in...

[wisteria]

55. I went against my better judgement.

Then again, who were we going to vote for? I did not support Obama in the primaries until it came down to him and Hillary. And, I even hesitated on election night, fighting my own gut feeling that he would be just like all the rest of the smooth talking politicians making promises to get elected only to break them and screw over those who were loyal and fought hard for him.

[Occam Bandage]

75. Obama hasn't gone back on a single promise. Sorry you weren't paying attention. nt

[wisteria]

53. I agree and I went against my better judgment and voted for him,

because I let myself believe that he just might be different.

[bridgit]

57. We have all voted for him, No one in my orbit has not. But there is a specific gravity...

that DC bears upon even the most eloquently progressive of individuals...and in time it grinds upon the sharpest of edges not unlike a grinding stone. Where the blade's master is less than diligent...the edge will soon become dull. Many are quite appropriate and rightly correct when they point out, "Barack has not even as yet taken the oath!!!" And I say God Bless Him for that, for in time the stone will begin to spin in dire earnest and it will be incumbent upon the blade to begin to interface with it in like-earnest-ness; and so I say again: God Bless him, and God Bless America. For we do have both troubles and foes foreign and domestic that seek to do us harm

[wisteria]

54. delete

[laugle]

60. One question: Who are the neocon lite allies on the dem side?

[dailykoff]

62. clues:

[laugle]

65. Photoshop................

[TexasObserver]

61. JUMP! Don't wait. Do it today!

Exactly WHEN have you ever had a good thing to say about Obama?

This thread is more of the same sad bullshit you've been spewing all year.

You hate Obama. I get it.

[bridgit]

80. heh-heh, wisteria "hates" Obama!? Wow! I bet you're fun standing next to...

in line at the deli waiting your turn :spray:

[sfam]

66. Wow, you really do have an "Obama is bad" message in every thread...

Now I feel bad that I responded to you normally in my thread...I didn't realize you're just here to badmouth the guy as much as possible. Good luck with that...

[MadBadger]

67. Seems to have a following to of Angry Trolls

[AuntPatsy]

68. Amazing, he is not even in power yet and some people just are not giving him a chance

to prove his worth regarding so many issues...of which granted and I firmly agree that Iraq withdrawal should be high on his list, but let us not forget the mess this administration has left this country in and the millions of americans that are feeling the effects of bad governing...

I agree people should watch and remain vigilant but wouldn't it be better if such vigilance were focused on those that are power at the moment? Its not a very good idea to ignore the present day criminals who still continue on without regard for americans or america....

[blogslut]

70. "We"?

Did you vote for Barack Obama?

[jenmito]

71. How many threads have you started today about your "disappointment" in Obama?

The people he chooses will be implementing HIS agenda.

[cali]

73. I'm loving your bitterness and disappointment

puma girl. Just like with the freepers, I find your misery delicious. whine on.

[Colobo]

74. Wisteria attacks Obama again.

[olegramps]

77. Clinton's main function will be to solidify our allies

Clinton indeed did vote for the resolution, but she also stated in her speech that she did not believe that the situation at that time warranted an invasion. Yes, it was somewhat sitting on the fence, but attempting to paint her as a vicious hawk is pure baloney. She wants a strong military. Well, so do I and that is why I hate the continence of this war because it is destroying our military capability. Requiring a strong military is an unfortunately necessity, but it is not synonymous with being a war monger.

What I see is that the Clinton's immense popularity with our former allies is the key to her being selected as Secretary of State. The Clinton's have an in depth knowledge of the world situation that is invaluable. I use the plural because I acknowledge that Bill will have valuable input and they have always been a powerful team.

She is a great choice and maybe we will actually be able to do something to resolve the Palestinian situation. This is the major key to defanging the radical Islamists. As far as Lieberman, he is a "useful idiot" whose only concern is the wellbeing of Israel. This is what drove him into the arms of the war mongering Republicans. On every other issue he totally disagrees with the religious conservative wackos and is in fact more liberal than many Democrats. Obama totally marginalized him without alienating him. If he had listened to some on this board who only sought revenge, the risk would have been to drive Lieberman into the Republican camp. Like grandma said you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.

[happychatter]

79. "We're going to be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in."

Where have I heard THAT before, eh?

harumph and tut tut