You're right. We should just reject anyone in power. Cmon now, theres a difference in supporting someone and hoping they succeed vs. blindly following because hes the leader.
Bush had me until Iraq. I would have never voted for him but he was doing an OK job. Then Iraq came and he became the worst President of all time. And this was still in the timeframe of the first 4 years so we had a chance to vote him out.
I think rather then judge every friggin move Obama makes before he takes office we should see what hes going to try to do first AND THEN PASS JUDGMENT.
My $0.02.
I'm not saying we should reject anyone in power, I'm saying we don't have to rally behind anyone simply because he's president.
I think we do need to judge the moves that an elected official makes. It's our right and responsibility to do so.
I'm not saying we should reject anyone in power, I'm saying we don't have to rally behind anyone simply because he's president.
I think we do need to judge the moves that an elected official makes. It's our right and responsibility to do so.
To add to this, it's been interesting to see how people are acting post-election. They feel like they worked so hard to get Obama elected, and now they just want everything to be done with. The problem is, it doesn't work like that. We'll ALWAYS be struggling for change. Even if I had voted for Obama, I'd still be saying the same things as I am now. We need to be up his ass imo...every time the people apply pressure, change happens, and it happens quick. Change rarely comes through elections.
You're right. We should just reject anyone in power. Cmon now, theres a difference in supporting someone and hoping they succeed vs. blindly following because hes the leader.
Bush had me until Iraq. I would have never voted for him but he was doing an OK job. Then Iraq came and he became the worst President of all time. And this was still in the timeframe of the first 4 years so we had a chance to vote him out.
I think rather then judge every friggin move Obama makes before he takes office we should see what hes going to try to do first AND THEN PASS JUDGMENT.
My $0.02.
If you look at a recipe and see it calls for a cup of salt...you kinda know it's going to taste salty before you make it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I agree. Don't you think that's sad though? I feel like our hopes and expectations from government shouldn't be moderate...they should be realistic, but they shouldn't be as limited as they've become. Most people seem to be so disenchanted with government that they'll be happy with tiny changes here and there. If I could get to a point of feeling like that, I would've voted for Obama without even thinking twice.
I dunno...the changes I want don't seem really extreme. I don't want to fight all these stupid wars so rich people can get richer. I don't want to fund countries like Israel who defy the UN constantly, causing people halfway around the world to hate me and my country. I don't want to see us spend as much money on defense as the rest of the world combined does. I want that money to go to things like healthcare and education. These aren't extreme requests imo.
i do understand your pov. i am merely suggesting that there may be many who view it all differently from you and thus and that perhaps they then don't see it as sad, nor tiny changes, etc.
i do agree on many of your points, and i also agree they aren't 'extreme'...but to others with a different mindset, perhaps they are? idk. i just know we are where we are, and i DO still have hope for changes. some that i believe will be rather significant. and i also believe that even utilizing many veteran, washington insiders, in and of itself....doest NOT signifiy things will continue on 'as usual'.....b/c change can and does occur with even the slightest new and positive outside influence. i believe obama may just be that force.
If you look at a recipe and see it calls for a cup of salt...you kinda know it's going to taste salty before you make it.
nice analogy, although...not really true. like most things, that 'cup of salt' must be seen in the CONTEXT of the resipe. is the recipe meant to feed 2....or 10? makes a BIG difference...in the saltiness of the dish, or the context of change.
Another excellent article for Some of You To Ignore, Or Deride: Obama: IMPERIALISM YOU CAN BELIEVE IN
While Leftists Celebrate “Change,” Obama Appointees Suggest Massive Expansion Of Bush War Doctrine
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, November 20, 2008
While naive, giddy and myopic establishment leftists have been celebrating the great “change” heralded by the election of Barack Obama, the President elect has been busy appointing people to key positions who advocate the same Neo-Con imperialist foreign policy crafted during eight years of the Bush administration.
The New York Times, widely recognized as the voice of the establishment Democratic left, set the tone of what we can expect from an Obama foreign policy in a lead editorial last Sunday entitled, “A military for a dangerous new world.”
The editorial calls for U.S. military imperialism not to be scaled back under Obama, but to be vastly expanded both in terms of budget and scope.
Iran, China, Somalia, Russia and Pakistan are all listed as potential targets of U.S. military aggression and the paper echoes what Obama himself has said he will implement - an addition of nearly 100,000 more soldiers and marines to American ground forces, bringing the total to 759,000 active duty forces, at a cost of $100 billion dollars over the next six years.
Does this sound like a “change” from the Project For a New American century framework of endless “multi-theatre warfare,” the inspiration for eight years of Bush administration militarism, or an expansion of that very doctrine?
Obama’s announced appointees and those that are expected to follow differ only from their Bush administration contemporaries in proficiency and competence, their zeal for military adventurism is coequal, while others that shaped eight awful years of spying, torture, eviscerations on freedom and unprovoked military attacks on sovereign nations will merely stay on in their roles.
Welcome to the “change that you can believe in”.
Obama’s likely selection of Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State highlights the brazen hypocrisy with which the “change” agenda has begun to be implemented since Obama won the election two and a half weeks ago.
Hillary Clinton
Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, a point on which she was attacked by Obama during the phony punch and judy show of the debates. Obama also denounced Clinton for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton promised to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel, a mantra echoed by Obama when he assured AIPAC, the notorious Israeli lobby, that military strikes against Iran were very much on the table.
Does this sound like the language of diplomacy or a change from eight years of the Bush doctrine?
Likewise, one of the favorites to become Obama’s Defense Secretary is Michèle A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank.
As Alex Lantier writes, “Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by (John) Podesta and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team.”
“So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that CNAS officials told the (Wall Street) Journal they were concerned the think tank might fold after Obama’s inauguration.”
CNAS has opposed a set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, has advocated the deployment of more troops in Afghanistan and has called for U.S. troops to be stationed in Pakistan. CNAS has also urged military spending to be beefed up in order to compete with China’s growing Navy.
“CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web site, make it clear that the Obama administration’s foreign policy will have a thoroughly imperialist character,” notes Lantier.
How does this represent a “change” from eight years of Bush administration foreign policy? How does this represent a shift from a strategy of diplomacy based on intimidation, invasion and occupation?
Robert Gates
Obama’s advisors have also been floating the likelihood of Robert Gates remaining as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, so it looks like we’re either going to have a warmonger or a warmonger in the position - what a choice!
The Financial Times reported this week, “President-Elect Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating terms under which the defense secretary would remain as Pentagon chief in the new administration.”
Gates of course has a history of entanglement with the military-industrial complex having pushed for the U.S. bombing of Nicaragua when he was deputy director of the CIA and later being indicted for his involvement in covering up the Iran Contra scandal.
Gates was the primary advocate for the Iraq “surge” which increased the U.S. military presence in the country.
Obama’s decision to appoint Eric Holder as Attorney General caused a flutter of controversy considering Holder’s involvement in ensuring billionaire fugitive investor Marc Rich received a presidential pardon at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, but the real dirt on Holder is far more shocking.
Eric Holder
After leaving the Clinton administration, Holder, who played a key role in the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which Obama voted for, set up the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling. The firm’s most high-profile case was its defense of Chiquita Brands International, Inc, whose executives were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia.
As Bill Van Auken writes, “Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence—and the company’s own admission—that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists.”
“Holder’s record is not that of a champion of civil and democratic rights or a defender of the oppressed, but rather a legal servant of the corporations and the state, complicit in their criminality and repression.”
Holder’s law enforcement deputy in the Obama administration is likely to be Robert Mueller, who will remain as FBI Director despite his involvement in the use of National Security Letters to illegally spy on American citizens via the collection of email, telecommunications and financial records.
Robert Mueller
Obama’s head of the CIA transition team is none other than John Brennan, an aide to former CIA director George Tenet and a key participant in the formulation of policies that led to the torture scandal, extraordinary renditions and secret prisons.
Van Auken notes, “Brennan, like Tenet, deserves to confront a war crimes tribunal, yet he is shaping intelligence policy for Obama.”
“Given these appointments, a report published Monday by the Associated Press that the incoming Obama administration “is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in” torture hardly comes as a surprise.”
Then we have Rahm Emanuel, “the enforcer”, and Obama’s new chief of staff.
Emanuel is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.
Upon news of his appointment, Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, told the Jerusalem Post, “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”
But forget sins of the father, Rahm Emanuel himself is a former Israeli IDF soldier who has a penchant for making death threats against his political enemies while crazily slamming a knife into a dinner table. Sounds like a diplomatic kind of guy.
Rahm Emanuel
When Emanuel’s appointment was confirmed, top Israeli newspaper the Maariv Daily hailed the news with the headline, “Our man in the White House.”
Another Israeli news outlet, Y Net, reported, “Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel.”
Recall that President elect Barack Obama’s first act of “change” upon winning the Democratic presidential nomination back in June was to don a joint US-Israeli label pin, head on over to AIPAC and prostrate himself in front of the Israeli lobby, vowing to keep military action in mind for Iran and promising to hand over another $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money in military assistance to the Zionist state.
It seems that Obama has already answered the question of whether he can be a more hardcore Israel hard-liner than George W. Bush - ‘yes he can’!
When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran eight years of Bush foreign policy?
When are leftists going to get over their petty power trips and understand that the mantra of “change” is a mere illusion to provide left cover for a massive expansion in U.S. imperialism the likes of which the Bush administration could never have accomplished?
When are liberals going to stop behaving like gloating children and understand that Obama’s exalted messiah status and political capital, allied with his publicly stated agenda and the nature and track record of those he has appointed to key positions, is a recipe for a new wave of militarism and an expansion of the pre-emptive Bush foreign policy doctrine that Obama himself campaigned against with his rhetorical and empty promises of “change”?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
nice analogy, although...not really true. like most things, that 'cup of salt' must be seen in the CONTEXT of the resipe. is the recipe meant to feed 2....or 10? makes a BIG difference...in the saltiness of the dish, or the context of change.
Are you kidding?!? It's exactly true.
Israel is the recipe. To boot Obama is stirring the mix with a gold plated AIPAC spoon.
This much pretty anyone can see....well maybe not.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran eight years of Bush foreign policy?"
I wonder....
Probably about three to four years from now..some will never garner enough interest or knowledge to know anything either way except what they are told on TV.
Ignorance is bliss.....no doubt.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Israel is the recipe. To boot Obama is stirring the mix with a gold plated AIPAC spoon.
This much pretty anyone can see....well maybe not.
i was discussing your SALT anaolgy, and nothing more.
and a cup of salt, in and of itself, does NOT signify that a dish will taste salty. sorry if you thought i was referencing something else.
I wonder how long it will be before the Obama followers realize that they have been bamboozled.
when/if it happens...we'll realize along with everyone else. and if we aren't when will others realize it? it CAN go either way ya know. besides, it sure does seem the majority of americans CHOSE this, so we reap what we sow. if the past 8 years proves nothing else, it's that sorry lesson. so sure, many of us see right now as a time of change and hope. if we end up 'bamboozled' so be it. personally, i didn't see any other viable choice out there aside from obama. obviously, others may see things differently. and so it goes. however, here we are and i choose hope.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
when/if it happens...we'll realize along with everyone else. and if we aren't when will others realize it? it CAN go either way ya know. besides, it sure does seem the majority of americans CHOSE this, so we reap what we sow. if the past 8 years proves nothing else, it's that sorry lesson. so sure, many of us see right now as a time of change and hope. if we end up 'bamboozled' so be it. personally, i didn't see any other viable choice out there aside from obama. obviously, others may see things differently. and so it goes. however, here we are and i choose hope.
I find his rumored choice for DHS secretary very frightening. Plus now Hillary, Holder, Daschle, Emmanuel (sp?, I'm not looking it up) who am I forgetting? Smells like a Clinton White House to me.
ya know, i am fully supportive of others' skepticism, and sure...i have my own reservations to some degree as well, but none the less...the utter disbelief that anyone may possibly be hopeful just seems kinda....sad, you want to say i and others are delusional, so be it.
and sure, on the topic - how novel - i will reserve judgement on obama's cabinet choices once he actually makes em all...and even then, actions will mean a LOT more to me. and yes, i do believe even washington insiders can and do desire and work for change with the right support and leadership.
btw - kinda related, i was just, finally, watching body of war today, and was watching that senator from west virginia, his name escapes me at the moment...a senator for over 40 years, and he certainly seemed one of those most vehemently opposed to the war, fighting to stop it, etc. so sure, even long-time insiders can certainly be for justice and what is right.
personally, i didn't see any other viable choice out there aside from obama.
perhaps you'll see differently next election, assuming bamboozlement?
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- President John Quincy Adams
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
perhaps you'll see differently next election, assuming bamboozlement?
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- President John Quincy Adams
depnds on if there is bamboozlement AND the choices available next election.
i am fully supportive of others' skepticism, and sure...i have my own reservations to some degree as well, but none the less...the utter disbelief that anyone may possibly be hopeful just seems kinda....sad, you want to say i and others are delusional, so be it.
That's the main difference I guess. You're supportive of others' skepticism, and I'm not supportive of what I see as hope that's based on fantasy, not reality. I really think all the hope is coming from listening to the man speak, and that's about it. People forget about his voting record, and they ignore history (or they didn't know in the first place). Most of the skepticism I see is based on things that actually happened, not things that someone says WILL happen.
Some positions probably require people that have great know of how Washington works (chief of staff, budget director), so there aren't really a big pool of people out there on the dem side who don't have some sort of connection with Clinton.
With only 4 of the 20 something cabinet-type positions filled, I'm waiting until the cabinet fills out more to pass judgement. But that being said, Obama really has to bring some outside people into his cabinet.
i guess everyone forgets how well the economy did in clintons years. and the budget surplus. yea horrible moves by obama :rolleyes:
Now, please take out the recycling and the trash, pick your dirty socks up off the floor and put in the magic basket that makes everything clean and don't forget we have to take the old bed apart tonight because they are delivering the new one tomorrow. Let's try not to break the new one...(or maybe lets do that again.....)
The Daystar
"But --you say that Dreams have no power here? Tell me, Lucifer Morningstar...Ask yourselves, all of you...What power would hell have if those here imprisoned were not able to Dream of Heaven?" Dream speaking to Lucifer as written by Neil Gaiman.
i guess everyone forgets how well the economy did in clintons years. and the budget surplus. yea horrible moves by obama :rolleyes:
I thought the general consensus was that Clinton himself had little to zero to do with the economy during his tenure, and that it just was what it was from his perspective, which happened to look good for him by default.
I could be wrong.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I find his rumored choice for DHS secretary very frightening. Plus now Hillary, Holder, Daschle, Emmanuel (sp?, I'm not looking it up) who am I forgetting? Smells like a Clinton White House to me.
Change indeed.
Even a Clinton White House would be a huge change from a Bush White House. Personally, you're only going to feel bamboozled if you expected to trade a hardline right wing neocon partisan WH for a hardline left wing ultra-liberal partisan WH. I didn't expect that. I expected a sensible, centrist WH with intelligent policy. I was pretty happy with the way the country was running under Clinton. If Obama emulates that, he could do far worse. It's a definite improvement from Bush. Baby steps, my friend.
I'm giving him a chance to show what he can do before I start freaking out. Shit, I gave Bush the same chance and I REALLY didn't like him going in.
Even a Clinton White House would be a huge change from a Bush White House. Personally, you're only going to feel bamboozled if you expected to trade a hardline right wing neocon partisan WH for a hardline left wing ultra-liberal partisan WH. I didn't expect that. I expected a sensible, centrist WH with intelligent policy. I was pretty happy with the way the country was running under Clinton. If Obama emulates that, he could do far worse. It's a definite improvement from Bush. Baby steps, my friend.
I'm giving him a chance to show what he can do before I start freaking out. Shit, I gave Bush the same chance and I REALLY didn't like him going in.
that is my thought as well, and i of course don't know for certain...but i don't imagine the vast majority of obama supporters were/are expecting that, at all.
moderate and centrist...still change for the better absolutely.....and what i think would be most 'expectations'...and policy changes that reflect such thinking.
Stay with me...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Even a Clinton White House would be a huge change from a Bush White House. Personally, you're only going to feel bamboozled if you expected to trade a hardline right wing neocon partisan WH for a hardline left wing ultra-liberal partisan WH. I didn't expect that. I expected a sensible, centrist WH with intelligent policy. I was pretty happy with the way the country was running under Clinton. If Obama emulates that, he could do far worse. It's a definite improvement from Bush. Baby steps, my friend.
I'm giving him a chance to show what he can do before I start freaking out. Shit, I gave Bush the same chance and I REALLY didn't like him going in.
All I know is that a Bush or Clinton has had a hand in every administration since 1980. I'm ready for REAL CHANGE, not Clinton's recycled people.
Comments
I think we do need to judge the moves that an elected official makes. It's our right and responsibility to do so.
If you look at a recipe and see it calls for a cup of salt...you kinda know it's going to taste salty before you make it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i do understand your pov. i am merely suggesting that there may be many who view it all differently from you and thus and that perhaps they then don't see it as sad, nor tiny changes, etc.
i do agree on many of your points, and i also agree they aren't 'extreme'...but to others with a different mindset, perhaps they are? idk. i just know we are where we are, and i DO still have hope for changes. some that i believe will be rather significant. and i also believe that even utilizing many veteran, washington insiders, in and of itself....doest NOT signifiy things will continue on 'as usual'.....b/c change can and does occur with even the slightest new and positive outside influence. i believe obama may just be that force.
nice analogy, although...not really true. like most things, that 'cup of salt' must be seen in the CONTEXT of the resipe. is the recipe meant to feed 2....or 10? makes a BIG difference...in the saltiness of the dish, or the context of change.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Obama: IMPERIALISM YOU CAN BELIEVE IN
While Leftists Celebrate “Change,” Obama Appointees Suggest Massive Expansion Of Bush War Doctrine
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, November 20, 2008
While naive, giddy and myopic establishment leftists have been celebrating the great “change” heralded by the election of Barack Obama, the President elect has been busy appointing people to key positions who advocate the same Neo-Con imperialist foreign policy crafted during eight years of the Bush administration.
The New York Times, widely recognized as the voice of the establishment Democratic left, set the tone of what we can expect from an Obama foreign policy in a lead editorial last Sunday entitled, “A military for a dangerous new world.”
The editorial calls for U.S. military imperialism not to be scaled back under Obama, but to be vastly expanded both in terms of budget and scope.
Iran, China, Somalia, Russia and Pakistan are all listed as potential targets of U.S. military aggression and the paper echoes what Obama himself has said he will implement - an addition of nearly 100,000 more soldiers and marines to American ground forces, bringing the total to 759,000 active duty forces, at a cost of $100 billion dollars over the next six years.
Does this sound like a “change” from the Project For a New American century framework of endless “multi-theatre warfare,” the inspiration for eight years of Bush administration militarism, or an expansion of that very doctrine?
Obama’s announced appointees and those that are expected to follow differ only from their Bush administration contemporaries in proficiency and competence, their zeal for military adventurism is coequal, while others that shaped eight awful years of spying, torture, eviscerations on freedom and unprovoked military attacks on sovereign nations will merely stay on in their roles.
Welcome to the “change that you can believe in”.
Obama’s likely selection of Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State highlights the brazen hypocrisy with which the “change” agenda has begun to be implemented since Obama won the election two and a half weeks ago.
Hillary Clinton
Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, a point on which she was attacked by Obama during the phony punch and judy show of the debates. Obama also denounced Clinton for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton promised to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel, a mantra echoed by Obama when he assured AIPAC, the notorious Israeli lobby, that military strikes against Iran were very much on the table.
Does this sound like the language of diplomacy or a change from eight years of the Bush doctrine?
Likewise, one of the favorites to become Obama’s Defense Secretary is Michèle A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank.
As Alex Lantier writes, “Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by (John) Podesta and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team.”
“So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that CNAS officials told the (Wall Street) Journal they were concerned the think tank might fold after Obama’s inauguration.”
CNAS has opposed a set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, has advocated the deployment of more troops in Afghanistan and has called for U.S. troops to be stationed in Pakistan. CNAS has also urged military spending to be beefed up in order to compete with China’s growing Navy.
“CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web site, make it clear that the Obama administration’s foreign policy will have a thoroughly imperialist character,” notes Lantier.
How does this represent a “change” from eight years of Bush administration foreign policy? How does this represent a shift from a strategy of diplomacy based on intimidation, invasion and occupation?
Robert Gates
Obama’s advisors have also been floating the likelihood of Robert Gates remaining as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, so it looks like we’re either going to have a warmonger or a warmonger in the position - what a choice!
The Financial Times reported this week, “President-Elect Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating terms under which the defense secretary would remain as Pentagon chief in the new administration.”
Gates of course has a history of entanglement with the military-industrial complex having pushed for the U.S. bombing of Nicaragua when he was deputy director of the CIA and later being indicted for his involvement in covering up the Iran Contra scandal.
Gates was the primary advocate for the Iraq “surge” which increased the U.S. military presence in the country.
Obama’s decision to appoint Eric Holder as Attorney General caused a flutter of controversy considering Holder’s involvement in ensuring billionaire fugitive investor Marc Rich received a presidential pardon at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, but the real dirt on Holder is far more shocking.
Eric Holder
After leaving the Clinton administration, Holder, who played a key role in the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which Obama voted for, set up the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling. The firm’s most high-profile case was its defense of Chiquita Brands International, Inc, whose executives were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia.
As Bill Van Auken writes, “Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence—and the company’s own admission—that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists.”
“Holder’s record is not that of a champion of civil and democratic rights or a defender of the oppressed, but rather a legal servant of the corporations and the state, complicit in their criminality and repression.”
Holder’s law enforcement deputy in the Obama administration is likely to be Robert Mueller, who will remain as FBI Director despite his involvement in the use of National Security Letters to illegally spy on American citizens via the collection of email, telecommunications and financial records.
Robert Mueller
Obama’s head of the CIA transition team is none other than John Brennan, an aide to former CIA director George Tenet and a key participant in the formulation of policies that led to the torture scandal, extraordinary renditions and secret prisons.
Van Auken notes, “Brennan, like Tenet, deserves to confront a war crimes tribunal, yet he is shaping intelligence policy for Obama.”
“Given these appointments, a report published Monday by the Associated Press that the incoming Obama administration “is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in” torture hardly comes as a surprise.”
Then we have Rahm Emanuel, “the enforcer”, and Obama’s new chief of staff.
Emanuel is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.
Upon news of his appointment, Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, told the Jerusalem Post, “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”
But forget sins of the father, Rahm Emanuel himself is a former Israeli IDF soldier who has a penchant for making death threats against his political enemies while crazily slamming a knife into a dinner table. Sounds like a diplomatic kind of guy.
Rahm Emanuel
When Emanuel’s appointment was confirmed, top Israeli newspaper the Maariv Daily hailed the news with the headline, “Our man in the White House.”
Another Israeli news outlet, Y Net, reported, “Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel.”
Recall that President elect Barack Obama’s first act of “change” upon winning the Democratic presidential nomination back in June was to don a joint US-Israeli label pin, head on over to AIPAC and prostrate himself in front of the Israeli lobby, vowing to keep military action in mind for Iran and promising to hand over another $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money in military assistance to the Zionist state.
It seems that Obama has already answered the question of whether he can be a more hardcore Israel hard-liner than George W. Bush - ‘yes he can’!
When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran eight years of Bush foreign policy?
When are leftists going to get over their petty power trips and understand that the mantra of “change” is a mere illusion to provide left cover for a massive expansion in U.S. imperialism the likes of which the Bush administration could never have accomplished?
When are liberals going to stop behaving like gloating children and understand that Obama’s exalted messiah status and political capital, allied with his publicly stated agenda and the nature and track record of those he has appointed to key positions, is a recipe for a new wave of militarism and an expansion of the pre-emptive Bush foreign policy doctrine that Obama himself campaigned against with his rhetorical and empty promises of “change”?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Are you kidding?!? It's exactly true.
Israel is the recipe. To boot Obama is stirring the mix with a gold plated AIPAC spoon.
This much pretty anyone can see....well maybe not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I wonder....
Probably about three to four years from now..some will never garner enough interest or knowledge to know anything either way except what they are told on TV.
Ignorance is bliss.....no doubt.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i was discussing your SALT anaolgy, and nothing more.
and a cup of salt, in and of itself, does NOT signify that a dish will taste salty. sorry if you thought i was referencing something else.
seriously...it is ending the war in iraq, working towards healthcare for all, preservation of rights for women, things like that.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
when/if it happens...we'll realize along with everyone else. and if we aren't when will others realize it? it CAN go either way ya know. besides, it sure does seem the majority of americans CHOSE this, so we reap what we sow. if the past 8 years proves nothing else, it's that sorry lesson. so sure, many of us see right now as a time of change and hope. if we end up 'bamboozled' so be it. personally, i didn't see any other viable choice out there aside from obama. obviously, others may see things differently. and so it goes. however, here we are and i choose hope.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I find his rumored choice for DHS secretary very frightening. Plus now Hillary, Holder, Daschle, Emmanuel (sp?, I'm not looking it up) who am I forgetting? Smells like a Clinton White House to me.
Change indeed.
ya know, i am fully supportive of others' skepticism, and sure...i have my own reservations to some degree as well, but none the less...the utter disbelief that anyone may possibly be hopeful just seems kinda....sad, you want to say i and others are delusional, so be it.
and sure, on the topic - how novel
btw - kinda related, i was just, finally, watching body of war today, and was watching that senator from west virginia, his name escapes me at the moment...a senator for over 40 years, and he certainly seemed one of those most vehemently opposed to the war, fighting to stop it, etc. so sure, even long-time insiders can certainly be for justice and what is right.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
perhaps you'll see differently next election, assuming bamboozlement?
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- President John Quincy Adams
If I opened it now would you not understand?
depnds on if there is bamboozlement AND the choices available next election.
and great quote, and i agree.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Yes, dear we do.
Now, please take out the recycling and the trash, pick your dirty socks up off the floor and put in the magic basket that makes everything clean and don't forget we have to take the old bed apart tonight because they are delivering the new one tomorrow. Let's try not to break the new one...(or maybe lets do that again.....)
"But --you say that Dreams have no power here? Tell me, Lucifer Morningstar...Ask yourselves, all of you...What power would hell have if those here imprisoned were not able to Dream of Heaven?" Dream speaking to Lucifer as written by Neil Gaiman.
I thought the general consensus was that Clinton himself had little to zero to do with the economy during his tenure, and that it just was what it was from his perspective, which happened to look good for him by default.
I could be wrong.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Even a Clinton White House would be a huge change from a Bush White House. Personally, you're only going to feel bamboozled if you expected to trade a hardline right wing neocon partisan WH for a hardline left wing ultra-liberal partisan WH. I didn't expect that. I expected a sensible, centrist WH with intelligent policy. I was pretty happy with the way the country was running under Clinton. If Obama emulates that, he could do far worse. It's a definite improvement from Bush. Baby steps, my friend.
I'm giving him a chance to show what he can do before I start freaking out. Shit, I gave Bush the same chance and I REALLY didn't like him going in.
that is my thought as well, and i of course don't know for certain...but i don't imagine the vast majority of obama supporters were/are expecting that, at all.
moderate and centrist...still change for the better absolutely.....and what i think would be most 'expectations'...and policy changes that reflect such thinking.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
All I know is that a Bush or Clinton has had a hand in every administration since 1980. I'm ready for REAL CHANGE, not Clinton's recycled people.