Obama's Kettle of War Hawks

[Better Believe It]

December 2, 2008
Obama's Kettle of Hawks
The absence of a solid anti-war voice on Obama's national security team means that US foreign policy isn't going to change
By JEREMY SCAHILL

The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush's time in office to the present.

On Iraq, the issue that the Obama campaign described as "the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation", Biden and Clinton not only supported the invasion, but pushed the Bush administration's propaganda and lies about Iraqi WMDs and fictitious connections to al-Qaida. Clinton and Obama's hawkish, pro-Israel chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, still refuse to renounce their votes in favour of the war.

Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign."

Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for 'neoliberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neoconservativism.'" Boot's buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement, that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term."

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/01/barack-obama-foreign-policy

[sandnsea]

1. Just like Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney

You betcha! And this is proof that the left is ideologically as stupid as the rapid right.

[mkultra]

2. well, this thread is.

[Captain Hilts]

32. Thank you. This article is stupid. nt

[polichick]

3. War hawks & Wall Street darlings...

Is Obama just giving himself political cover and an experienced cabinet ~ or will it be same 'ol same 'ol??

We'll see...

[The Magistrate]

4. Max Boot, Sir, is a Pretty Thin Rede To Hang So Much On....

[jefferson_dem]

5. I stopped reading this drivel halfway through the first sentence...

"The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks..." blah blah blah.

Somebody please let me know when (or if) Mr. Scahill rejoins the reality-based universe.

[cali]

6. Scahill misrepresents Biden and Clinton

not to mention Rice. Not exactly a shocking thing.

[Shiver]

7. Correct me if I'm wrong...

...but Rice was against the war, no?

[Better Believe It]

23. Really? So they opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

That's news to me!

[cali]

28. Clearly Biden and Clinton initially supported the war

Equally clear is that they both later repudiated the war. Now, I'll fault them for their votes and the initial support they both demonstrated, but presenting them as unrepentent war hawks is simplistic- to say the least.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Clinton clearly stated her IWR vote was not a green light to invade Iraq or capture Saddam. nt

[bvar22]

39. That is why Hillary called a press conference....

...and vigorously condemned Bush for exceeding the authority granted to him by her vote.....
Oh wait. No she didn't.
She (and Bill) kept cheering the War & Occupation for years....until it became a political liability.

[Raineyb]

55. Clinton has not repudiated her war vote at all.

I believe that was part of the reason why she lost the primary.

Regards

[Occam Bandage]

8. Susan Rice was not for the war. Gates kept us out of Iran.

Neither Clinton nor Biden are "hawks."

[Better Believe It]

24. So the Bush government kept "us" out of Iran?

Thanks for the info. Glad your not an apologist for Gates/Bush.

[Occam Bandage]

30. No. Gates kept the Bush Administration out of Iran.

Try to keep up.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Thank you. Some folks here don't do 'nuance'. nt

[Better Believe It]

27. Duplicate Deleted

Duplicate.

[leftstreet]

9. oops "the hidden hand of the free market"

From the article:

But the problem with Obama's appointments is hardly just a matter of bad vision on Iraq. What ultimately ties Obama's team together is their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US militarism to defend the America First doctrine.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Translation: "Obama's cabinet is not composed of Communists."

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone in Washington who will say, "Yes, I hate free markets."

[leftstreet]

13. If they were really "free," would they need military enforcement?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

17. It depends on what you mean by "they," "free," and "need."

Seriously. The answer could be "of course not," or "obviously so."

[Better Believe It]

29. Is it composed of progressives? Name them. All one or maybe two if that many!

[Occam Bandage]

31. I could, but you'd undoubtedly claim that they weren't "progressive" enough for you.

Even if Obama appointed Dennis Kucinich secretary of Health and Human Services, "real progressives" would point to his pre-2004 opposition to abortion rights and call him a "DLC centrist."

[Better Believe It]

53. No I wouldn't. How about Klugman or Roubini for example?

They favor tight regulation of capitalist markets and a massive stimulus program and a huge government "bailout" of people who will lose their homes without direct government help.

Now you name a few.

[bvar22]

40. Bit of a strawman there, Occam.

:thumbsdown:

[Occam Bandage]

42. True. The writer might also be looking for anarcho-syndicalists.

Find me a cabinet's worth of people in Washington who disapprove of free markets. Seriously.

[leftstreet]

44. It's about 'military enforcement' of free markets, not free markets

Find me proof 'free markets' work without military enforcement

[Occam Bandage]

46. Which is a meaningless claim.

Most military actions take place with one or both countries having a free market. Most free markets occur in nations that have a military. Most free-market nations form political alliances. These all happen independently and for obvious reasons.

Saying "Aha! Military enforcement of free markets" is not only cum hoc, it is based on a pack of unfounded and borderline tinfoil presumptions.

[leftstreet]

47. As God is My Witness, I thought Turkeys Could Fly

[bvar22]

50. You hit on the problem:

"Find me a cabinet's worth of people in Washington who disapprove of free markets."

Their bread is buttered by the CEOs of Big Business.

Now we got Your Children's Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THAT is "Bi-Partisanship"!
Get Used To It!!!
Hahahahahaha......SUCKERS !

Maybe it is time to look outside the beltway.

[Occam Bandage]

51. You mean to look for people who have no idea what they'd be doing?

That sounds like a great idea. After all, it worked for Carter and for Clinton.

Wait, no, both of them had atrocious first two years.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. I love you, Better Believe It.

I thought once Obama won, you'd maybe go about posting something positive, but nope, you didn't let me down! You continue to post every negative article you can find on Mr. Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Don't be silly.

You know as well as I that he only comes here to bash Dems.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. dupe

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Of course, that was my point.

:P

[PassingFair]

48. While you, apparently, come here to voice your agreement with such glittering notables as Karl Rove.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122783239069463007.html

snip>
"Mr. Obama's announcement of his economic team on Monday provided surprisingly positive clarity. He picked as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the respected, soft-spoken New York Fed president. Mr. Geithner has been a key player with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in confronting the financial crisis. Every major decision in the rescue effort came only after the three agreed.

The National Economic Council director-designee, Larry Summers, is another solid pick. Mr. Summers has been an advocate for trade liberalization, he was the Clinton administration's negotiator for the financial deregulation known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and he even attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 1990s."

Yeah!

[Occam Bandage]

49. The GOP is acting like they've been soundly whipped.

Dems did the same after '04, if you'll recall.

[mkultra]

19. How else can we be dosed by the anti-Obama MSM, he must bring it to us.

otherwise we might grow pleased and vote dem again in 4 years.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Anyone who has been paying attention...

...and who isn't in denial, understands that our country has been hijacked by neocons on
both sides of the aisle.

It isn't just Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz crafting our current foreign, PNAC-based policy. The
Democrat enablers ushered in a lot of it by feigning weakness. We all screamed, "Why are the Dems
so weak! Why are they doing NOTHING?" as we were illegally wiretapped, ushered into a lie-based war,
stripped of Habeas Corpus, and as we were witnesses to countless BushCo crimes.

By doing "nothing" the Dems held the door open for BushCo and the neocon agenda. That
should be obvious by now.

Most Dems are in on it. The majority of Congress critters are corrupt bastards.

You can count the true Progressive voices on one hand. You can bet that they're vilified
and ridiculed in DC, and left out of the inner circle--with their only power being a platform
from which to give sporadic speeches that give only voice (but no change) to OUR outrage.

It's all 'by design', folks.

What's Obama supposed to do? Appoint Kucinich as Secretary of State, Russ Feingold as head
of Defense and Michael Moore as Secretary of Labor? The majority of neocons (left and
right) in DC would destroy him within a few months of his Presidency. Can you imagine what
those bastards would orchestrate?

He's got to pull them in close, and begin to change the paradigm from within. It's the
only way it's EVER going to change. Obama needs to move the majority of neocons and neolibs
in DC--and it would be impossible if they were outside of the tent.

"Change from the bottom up" means we all need to get up off of our butts, and demand that our
country is returned to "We The People." Obama will help us get there, but we have to demand
it and want it and FIGHT. We'll be the leverage that Obama uses to overcome this neocon
stranglehold--to justify the changes that he seek--that we all seek.

Our democracy has been swallowed whole by the cons--and Obama, working on the inside, is this
country's last glimmer of hope.

[Two Americas]

38. we could have his back

Good post.

Of course Obama could not appoint Kucinich as Secretary of State, Russ Feingold as head of Defense and Michael Moore as Secretary of Labor. We wouldn't have his back, and the reason for that is because a small minority dominates the discussion and the party and works tirelessly at undermining and stamping out any hint of a drift to the Left.

I am not going to blame Obama. He is as good as, and maybe much better than most of the elected officials. The Democratic party politicians are doing their job perfectly - they represent the corporate interests to whom they are beholden, and we encourage them to compromise and waffle by our "loyalty first" position, our "we love you no matter what you do" support.

I am not going to blame the people. That is contradictory to every principle and ideal of the party.

If the recent election win means we can no longer speak out about the corrupting and overwhelming influence of the corporate war machine over our politics, government and every aspect of our lives, then we have "won" nothing of any value.

Perhaps out neo-cons are ultimately better than their neo-cons, but a "D" after their names is not sufficient evidence of that. One thing is for sure - they never will or can be better so long as we police any and all dissent within our own ranks.

This is a representative democracy. We do them no favors by giving them nothing to represent other than "we love you."

We are Democrats. The politicians may have to "run to the right" and compromise with the right wingers, but there is no excuse for any of us advocating that they do that. You don't go into negotiations starting with the figure you would settle for.

As FDR said "you want something, make me do it." That is a good politician, one who will respond to pressure - who welcomes and appreciates pressure.

We are on the political Left. That is not merely an "ideology" as good as and no better than the right wing "ideology." It is not a religious belief, and it is not about a "personal values" nor a "personal choice." Being on the Left means, first and foremost, looking out for others, working for the best interests of all the people, especially including the left out and the left behind. This is not "purist" nor is it contradictory to "practicality" or "pragmatism." To be on the Left is to see that idealism and pragmatism are ultimately one and the same. What is best for all, particularly the least among us, most efficiently and quickly and pragmatically advanced in the practical real world, IS our "ideology." It is the right wingers who toss away human beings and wreck the country for the sake of a supposed ideology, not us, and their ideology is a joke and a lie anyway - it is merely a sales and marketing campaign to get working people to support the interests of the ruling class. Their "ideology" is greed, and their program is the advancement of the whims and desires of the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of the working people.

The only real advantage to having Democrats in power is that they may listen to us. They can't do that if we don't say anything, or if w3e limit what we say to the fawning praise of sycophants and brown-nosers and yes men, and the strident defensive apologies of the dyed-in-the-wool partisan.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Nader is writing again? Is this Green Underground, because I am starting not to recognize DU

as a Democratic Website.

"Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term."

Ok.....

It appears that we are going to fuck ourselves into not even giving ourselves a chance.
How pathetic is this?

[rvablue]

33. A triple Amen to your comments! n/t

[DevonRex]

35. Nobody's posting on their sites anymore so they have to come here

just to have anybody to complain to. Sad.

This is the second thread cross posted from the other-other place today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. I sure wish I could recommend your post. I don't recognize DU anymore.

I feel like we've been set upon by squatters, and now I feel homeless. We weren't really given the chance to revel in this historic victory, before the bashing began. :(

[firedupdem]

16. Wow....what bullshit...didn't read it all.

January 20, 2009!!!!!

Woooooooo Hooooooooo

:woohoo:

[high density]

18. Yes, Biden = Cheney

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Gawd, when will this crap stop? Can we make a "GD: Bash the President" forum for this Obama hate circlejerk?

[mkultra]

22. perhaps we could call it GD: Douches

[wyldwolf]

21. ya know, THANK GOD there's not an "anti-war" voice in on Obama's team

I could just imagine this current bunch of "progressive" whiney writers in Roosevelt's and Kennedy's day.

[bunnies]

37. Jesus. H. Christ.

Obama = Bush. Now I've fucking heard it all. :banghead:

[zulchzulu]

41. So exactly who would Scahill choose?

Instead of the usual whining screed, tell us who we'd have instead. Otherwise, fuck off.

[TheKentuckian]

43. More hyperbole YAY!!!!

That damned Obama won't appoint Phil Lesh to the DoD, what the fuck is he thinking?!?

[Every Man A King]

45. Wait i thought he was a Socialist n/t

[blindpig]

54. What ya see is what ya get.

The apologists must have two people to help screw their pants on in the morning, their logic is so twisted.

[hulka38]

56. The Clintons and Biden backed the invasion. They were ignorant of nothing. They were very aware

of the political trap they were in, made their calculations, voted and have tried, especially in the case of Clinton, to make a strategic retreat from it ever since the Iraq issue started going south in the polls.
Their actions sucked. Saying they're repentant now, to whatever degree, doesn't do anybody any good...except them.

If you want a free market system that won't melt down you don't go completely Randian.