Consortium News: "Iraq War Foes Get Short Shrift"

[beachmom]

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

Arguably, Barack Obama’s most promising promise of the presidential campaign was his vow to not just end the war in Iraq but “to end the mindset that got us into war.”

Like much campaign rhetoric, this pledge was open to interpretation. Did he just mean that he would avoid the belligerent arrogance of George W. Bush, or was he suggesting a more fundamental challenge to Washington’s stale foreign policy elite?

...

In the three weeks since his Nov. 4 election victory, the answer seems to be that Barack Obama is viewing his pledge in the most minimal sense. The emerging shape of his incoming administration suggests that Americans who opposed the Iraq War early will continue to be treated as misfits and outsiders, even though Obama was one of them.

In the mainstream press, too, there survives the same old pro-war frame of debate. On Sunday, the New York Times published seven opinion articles about the open-ended conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, all by writers with histories of favoring Bush’s arguments for the wars, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

There were no articles from prominent opponents of the Iraq invasion, like Sen. Russ Feingold or Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni or arms inspector Scott Ritter. It seems that having the foresight and the courage to oppose Bush’s reckless invasion still disqualifies you from the respectable debate of the New York-Washington power centers.

...

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.

...

Hillary Clinton at State and Gates at Defense also mean that their entourages of generally hawkish advisers will have homes, too, in an Obama administration. Meanwhile, war critics – or those who would like to roll back the “military-industrial complex” – might find it a lot tougher to land a job.

Establishment Doves

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.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic standard-bearer in 2004 and a key backer of Obama’s foreign policy agenda, appears to have been passed over for Secretary of State, while getting mocked in the major news media. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ridiculed the idea of Kerry at State, writing “You know he just wants to swan around in those striped pants.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson favored an even-quicker withdrawal from Iraq than Obama and is a skilled international negotiator, but he finds himself getting a relatively low-level Cabinet post as Commerce Secretary (after hotel heiress Penny Pritzker turned down the job rather than explain her role in a sub-prime mortgage scandal).

Ironically, the one bright spot for anti-war Democrats may be the reported selection of retired four-star Marine Gen. James Jones to be Obama’s national security adviser. Inside the Pentagon, Jones resisted the rush to war with Iraq out of a “Lions for Lambs” concern that ambitious politicians were sending young Marines to die in an ill-considered war.

...

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.

Hey everybody, it's 2008, the new 2004.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sigh.

Yes, this is definitely the case given how much the Right has gushed about Hillary Clinton at State:

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453087,00.html

BAIER: Democratic strategist Bob Beckel with his own unique view of the meeting in Chicago where President-elect Obama talked to Senator Hillary Clinton about the possibility of the job of secretary of state.

According to the reporting of Jim Angle, that job is on the table. Senator Clinton has yet to accept it, but there are a number of Democrats who believe she should, or would.

We're back with the panel. Fred, Secretary Clinton, what do you think about that possibility and about the move?

BARNES: I think it is a smart move by President-elect Obama, and I think Hillary Clinton is bound to take it. It is a great job. This is not ambassador to Sri Lanka. This is Secretary of State of the United States. It's a huge job.

I'm surprised that we have gotten into a situation where I happen to think that she is by far the best person he could pick of all those that are out there.

This is going to make John Kerry completely bonkers since he was the guy — remember when Obama first became a rock star in politics, it was at that speech at the 2004 convention, Kerry's convention, when he was being nominated for the Democratic presidential nomination in Boston, and he is the one who elevated Obama.

Kerry wants to be secretary of state. I think Hillary Clinton would be much, much better. She's smarter. She's tougher. She knows a lot of these world leaders, or at least some of them. She was in the White House for a while.

I don't know what will happen to Bill here. Maybe he will be ambassador to Sri Lanka.

BAIER: Jeff, politically smart move?

BIRNBAUM: I think it's a very smart move.

As you pointed out, as the old adage goes, you want to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. And by bringing in Hillary Clinton, he keeps an eye on Hillary Clinton. In fact, she has to work for him.

This is very much like another president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, who filled his cabinet with rivals, as Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote in her recent book, a book that Obama has said he really admires. So I think he really is taking a page from that.

[Mass]

1. Not sure what you mean? Can you expand?

I have to say this is pretty much how I feel (and have been feeling since last week), but it is only me, probably.

I like the economical team he announced today. The expected national security team, not so much.

[beachmom]

2. In terms of who speaks for the Dem party, who the popular editorialists are,

who is on TV, who is the "grown up", and how COOL it is to mock and trash John Kerry, I find late November 2008 to be little different from November 2004. All of this grassroots building, and it feels the same to me. The powers of the DC Establishment won again.

I agree with you on the economic team (which includes former staffers of Kennedy and Kerry). But I am really turned off by the foreign policy team and the GODAWFUL name floated for CIA director (he is for torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping). And now murmurs that they will only allow a 9/11 type commission to do hearings on Bush crimes, but NOT Congressional hearings.

This is not what I fought for.

[karynnj]

3. I agree with you it feels like the establishment won

What particularly annoys me is their glee in ridiculing Kerry. The fact is that he has spent his time in the public eye with more dignity, grace and integrity than anyone else, other than maybe Obama, I can think of. (2 bad jokes in 4 years certainly is less bad than 4 times repeating tales - that grew - of sniper fire when there was none.) Without requiring a tinfoil hat, the only reason for their hatred is that he almost beat them - just being who he is - or that they know that no matter what they say or do, he will just go on being JK.

There are at least 2 ironies.
1) That of all the 2004 or 2008 candidates the one most likely in either year (had he run in 2008) to really lead an expeditious end to the war was and is Kerry. Kerry was the only one with enough real knowledge to push back against forces that will want to extend it - why the reason above - he will do what he thinks right no matter what the kool kidz or power elite says. (When Kerry had K/F, Dean was pushing the 2 year Korb plan. Yet, the antiwar left that lionized Dean (who really was no more anti-war than Kerry), Edwards(!) and Obama, who did really speak against the war.

2) That it may well be that the candidate who really would lead the most change was Kerry. Obama may be good on the economy - as would nearly any Democrat - but I really hope that Obama at least listens to Kerry and considers his advice. He may well do it - he has yet to state a single policy. (yeah I know this sounds like the Edwards people saying JRE was "stopped" because he was fighting corruption. )

[beachmom]

8. I will say that the media environment HAS gotten better. I just stumbled

upon this old diary by Sen. Kerry. It was his first one ever in January 2006 (seems like AGES ago). He was complaining about Hardball, which is actually MUCH better than it was 3 years ago:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/20/175232/080

Real Hardball Hotlist

by John Kerry

Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 02:52:31 PM PST
There's something that doesn't sit right with me when, on the day Osama Bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name calling as a war protester is compared to Osama Bin Laden.

That's reason to be outraged - but even more outrageous is the fact that in a flurry of sound bites what was lost was a real discussion of the fact that more than four years after the devastating attacks of 9/11, more than four years after George Bush boasted we wanted Osama "dead or alive," more than a year after Osama Bin Laden showed his hateful face in yet another video, this barbarian is still very much alive and boasting of additional attacks against the United States.

* John Kerry's diary :: ::
*

Here's what I'd like to see debated on Hardball.

President Bush's mouthpiece Scott McClellan can claim this administration puts terrorists out of business, but yesterday's tape reminds us that instead of being out of business, Osama is still out there.

If this administration had followed through on the opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora in 2001, the world would be a better place with Osama Bin Laden brought to justice -- and we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

And here's what the media should insist we discuss.

President Bush and his defenders continue to claim that Osama Bin Laden didn't escape at Tora Bora. But Gary Bernstein's book Jawbreaker documents what I said early in 2002 and during my debates with George Bush: that because Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon didn't use American troops to do the job and instead outsourced the job of killing the world's #1 terrorist to Afghan warlords, this cold blooded killer got away.

So what's the truth? There's a question that the full force of cable television should demand be answered. Press accounts over the last month have raised new concerns about the reliance on Afghan forces at Tora Bora in 2001. One account cited a Department of Defense document said to summarize the case against a suspected al Qaeda militant. The militant was believed to have helped Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. More recently, August Hanning, the head of German intelligence, has said bin Laden bribed Afghan forces at Tora Bora to make his escape.

My favorite line: "President Bush's mouthpiece Scott McClellan" -- who voted for Obama in '08. I mean, WOW, how far we have come.

I really suggest everyone goes in the wayback machine. Things really are better now. Hardball is better now.

[Mass]

4. I wanted to be sure we were on the same wavelength.

No disagreement from my part. Obviously, the same foreign policy team that has won for the last 20 years still wins.

Not that this war does not make any more victims, either Americans or Iraqis, though.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/mansfield/news/x541363775/Mansfield-mounrs-for-Army-Spc-Corey-Shea

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. This is why I wanted JK at SoS

Because it would signal that Obama is SERIOUS about making a real change in Washington. Obviously, he's not. I have no idea what happened to the "change" he campaigned on, but I see none of it yet.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I hope I'm wrong but my optimism about this dims every day. I should have realized that if TPTB saw Obama as a threat the way they clearly see Kerry as a threat, he'd have been ridiculed out of town, too. But he wasn't - maybe because they saw through all the "hope and change" bullshit long ago.

[Mass]

6. I am really been disabused by this, but, at the same time, I am observing

the meltdown of some people on DU with an ethnologist curiosity. At this point, we have 3 hysterical threads from alleged Obama supporters for one negative thread from either a troll or somebody who dares to criticize Obama. These people will never live 8 years through this.

[ProSense]

7. Frankly, I think it's all ridiculous.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic standard-bearer in 2004 and a key backer of Obama’s foreign policy agenda, appears to have been passed over for Secretary of State, while getting mocked in the major news media. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ridiculed the idea of Kerry at State, writing “You know he just wants to swan around in those striped pants.”

All of this silliness in the media is part of some people's attempts to create the impression that somehow Obama is snubbing people in order to coddle Hillary. The goal, no doubt, it to bolster the notion that she somehow has more bargaining power than she does.

Kerry is still a powerful Senator. Hillary is desperately going after the SoS position, still searching for someway to make her mark.

[whometense]

9. I agree.

Who actually knows whether JK wanted SOS or not? Has anyone any proof that he was "campaigning" for the job? If there is any, I haven't seen it. This whole thing reminds me of the period after the 2004 election, when the idea that "Kerry didn't fight back" took hold in the media, became a meme, and everyone repeated it ad nauseam.

I still think he - and the country - will be better served with JK as head of SFRC. Sure, it would have been nice to see him offered the SOS job. But does anyone know for certain that he wasn't sounded out about it by Obama before the Hillary circus started?

The right wing has lined up behind Hillary (seriously, what does that tell you??) so of course the reliable media morons are blathering in their usual way, trying to stir the pot, trying to make trouble. They have no power of their own so their only hope is to try to manipulate the dems into the usual circular firing squad.

So it looks like Hillary will do her stint as SOS, and then? End up in a think tank somewhere and make an obscene amount of money on speaking fees? Fine. Let her. I'd rather keep JK around - hopefully for a long time - in a position of power and with the chance to really make some changes. I hope he has enough support for that to actually happen.