PDA

View Full Version : Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet



PoliCon
11-20-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,4430107.story
Activists note that most of the candidates for top security posts voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq or otherwise supported launching the war.
By Paul Richter
November 20, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.
Honestly . . . . :rolleyes:

Sergeant_Hard
11-20-2008, 10:09 PM
What you are surprised. A politician will say and do anything to get elected and they never follow through on their promises. But, you also have to look at the mess this man has inherited. Just because he was elected to the office of the presidency does not mean all of things that the current administration is dealing with will magically disappear. Barrack has no foreign policy experience and no understanding of the military and its capabilities, so he is going to need both hawks and doves in his cabinets in order to make the hard decision that he will be called on to make.

Keep the faith all wars come to an eventually.

MrsSmith
11-20-2008, 10:48 PM
What you are surprised. A politician will say and do anything to get elected and they never follow through on their promises. But, you also have to look at the mess this man has inherited. Just because he was elected to the office of the presidency does not mean all of things that the current administration is dealing with will magically disappear. Barrack has no foreign policy experience and no understanding of the military and its capabilities, so he is going to need both hawks and doves in his cabinets in order to make the hard decision that he will be called on to make.

Keep the faith all wars come to an eventually.
They will. But not until Christ rules the world. :)

noonwitch
11-21-2008, 09:11 AM
Well, geez, I guess they expect him to make Dennis Kucinich the Secretary of Defense? I just assume that any president would pick a more hawkish person than he himself may be for that position, it's sort of the nature of the job.

Odysseus
11-21-2008, 10:12 AM
Well, geez, I guess they expect him to make Dennis Kucinich the Secretary of Defense? I just assume that any president would pick a more hawkish person than he himself may be for that position, it's sort of the nature of the job.

I think that they were holding out for Noam Chomsky. :D

Seriously, though, Obama has a unique opportunity. All of the heavy lifting for Iraq is complete. If he simply stays the course through the 2011 withdrawal date set by the Status of Forces Agreement, he can declare a victory in the war that he didn't have anything to do with. In fact, the Democratic spin will be that he won the war that Bush started and failed to win (facts to the contrary will be edited out of the history books by the ministry of information). He'd have to be insane to throw that away just to please his nutroots base.

Molon Labe
11-21-2008, 10:29 AM
I think that they were holding out for Noam Chomsky. :D

Seriously, though, Obama has a unique opportunity. All of the heavy lifting for Iraq is complete. If he simply stays the course through the 2011 withdrawal date set by the Status of Forces Agreement, he can declare a victory in the war that he didn't have anything to do with. In fact, the Democratic spin will be that he won the war that Bush started and failed to win (facts to the contrary will be edited out of the history books by the ministry of information). He'd have to be insane to throw that away just to please his nutroots base.

It's a myth that Obama ever desired a change from intervention. He much more resembles his Neocon brothers than Chomsky.
He will continue with the same policy....just a different place. And yes he will try to take credit for it. But with that also comes responsiblility if it fails.

Odysseus
11-21-2008, 11:02 AM
In 20 years time, some conservatives will even start claiming President Obama was actually a conservative Republican. Much in the same way some of them hilariously praise Harry Truman and JFK today, despite the fact that they used to call Truman a communist and JFK a Marxist.

You keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes:

BTW, I don't know anyone who claimed that Kennedy was a Marxist. The left loathed him, especially after he cut taxes and confronted the Soviets over Cuba, and don't forget that his AG had been Joe McCarthy's aide, not to mention the fact that he was murdered by an avowed Marxist and supporter of Castro.

noonwitch
11-21-2008, 01:01 PM
BTW, I don't know anyone who claimed that Kennedy was a Marxist. The left loathed him, especially after he cut taxes and confronted the Soviets over Cuba, and don't forget that his AG had been Joe McCarthy's aide, not to mention the fact that he was murdered by an avowed Marxist and supporter of Castro.



I know a few people who think that JFK was a marxist. They were John Birch Society members.

Molon Labe
11-21-2008, 01:58 PM
Well, geez, I guess they expect him to make Dennis Kucinich the Secretary of Defense? I just assume that any president would pick a more hawkish person than he himself may be for that position, it's sort of the nature of the job.

When the "Kiss" starts praising her....then she might be a Hawk. ;)


Hillary Clinton 'outstanding:' Kissinger

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/hillary_clinton_outstanding_ki.html

Odysseus
11-21-2008, 03:10 PM
I know a few people who think that JFK was a marxist. They were John Birch Society members.
The Birchers were always the extreme fringe of the conservative movement, until Bill Buckley drummed them out in National Review.

When the "Kiss" starts praising her....then she might be a Hawk. ;)
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/hillary_clinton_outstanding_ki.html
Kissinger wasn't that hawkish. Remember "Detente?"

xavierob82
11-21-2008, 04:05 PM
You keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes:

BTW, I don't know anyone who claimed that Kennedy was a Marxist. The left loathed him, especially after he cut taxes and confronted the Soviets over Cuba, and don't forget that his AG had been Joe McCarthy's aide, not to mention the fact that he was murdered by an avowed Marxist and supporter of Castro.



Yeah, okay whatever. Even Ronald Reagan called JFK a "tousle-haired Marxist" in a letter to his buttbuddy Nixon in 1960. In fact, the election of JFK was so traumatic to Raygun that it was after JFK's election that prompted him to proclaim "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

The left didn't loathe JFK, you dummy, he represented the liberal wing of the Democratic party in the late Fifties. It was Lyndon Johnson whom the left did not like nor trust. You need to go back and learn some American history. And liberals today love JFK, especially in regards to his standing up for Civil Rights legistlation and in his efforts to fight segregation. Of course JFK wasn't a radical liberal, but neither was Bill Clinton. Both were centrist Democrats, yet both are widely admired by liberals today.

And yes, right-wing wingnuts called JFK a Marxist and commie, just like wingnuts today call Obama. If JFK were alive today, he would have ventured left just like his brothers Teddy and RFK, his late son John Jr, and his daughter Caroline. And he would be vilified by Republicans.

Wingnut talking points never change.

xavierob82
11-21-2008, 04:14 PM
The Birchers were always the extreme fringe of the conservative movement, until Bill Buckley drummed them out in National Review.

Kissinger wasn't that hawkish. Remember "Detente?"


The Birchers are what constitutes the Republican Party today: bug-eyed loonies who shout "Communism!" at almost every single Democrat, despite the fact that JFK, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama are not communists nor Marxists.

Wingnut talking points never change.

BadCat
11-21-2008, 04:29 PM
The Birchers are what constitutes the Republican Party today: bug-eyed loonies who shout "Communism!" at almost every single Democrat, despite the fact that JFK, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama are not communists nor Marxists.

Wingnut talking points never change.

So, now we're all members of the John Birch Society?

Zathras
11-21-2008, 05:12 PM
The Birchers are what constitutes the Republican Party today: bug-eyed loonies who shout "Communism!" at almost every single Democrat, despite the fact that JFK, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama are not communists nor Marxists.

Wingnut talking points never change.

If that's the case, then the people of DU, DailyKOS and MoveOn are what constitute mainstream Democrats today.

Molon Labe
11-24-2008, 02:46 PM
The Birchers were always the extreme fringe of the conservative movement, until Bill Buckley drummed them out in National Review.

Kissinger wasn't that hawkish. Remember "Detente?"

Sure I remember Detente....lets just say that Neocon's aren't too depressed with her at the helm.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_neocons_hillary/


The Neocons ♥ Hillary
Posted by Jack Hunter on November 24, 2008

Neoconservatives afraid that a President Obama might even partially live up his promise to remove troops from Iraq have been warming up to the new administration and hedging their bets where they can. Not since Operation Chaos during the primaries have we seen some Republicans so anxious to jump off the “Stop-Hillary Express” and on the Clinton bandwagon. The sort of Republican who cheers for Hillary is the same sort who embraced Lieberman. No matter how many liberal positions either held, socialized healthcare, open borders, higher taxes, anti-2nd amendment, it didn’t matter. As with Lieberman, so long as Hillary is prepared to continue sending U.S. troops around the world to continue the neoconservative mission of American global empire, Clinton would be their gal.



The Birchers are what constitutes the Republican Party today: bug-eyed loonies who shout "Communism!" at almost every single Democrat, despite the fact that JFK, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama are not communists nor Marxists.

Wingnut talking points never change.

The birch Republican's were expelled in the late 90's. That's too bad too, because minus some of the bad rap for being conspiriacists, history has been kind to their concern with communism.

Odysseus
11-24-2008, 03:07 PM
The Birchers are what constitutes the Republican Party today: bug-eyed loonies who shout "Communism!" at almost every single Democrat, despite the fact that JFK, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama are not communists nor Marxists.

Wingnut talking points never change.
Sure they do. Are you still posting the same things here that you were a year ago? :D

Sure I remember Detente....lets just say that Neocon's aren't too depressed with her at the helm.
Hillary is the one cabinet pick that gives me hope for the future, not because I think that she's any good, but because she is so tempermentally and professionally unsuited for diplomacy that it's guaranteed job security for the armed forces for the next four years. Can you imagine the number of wars that she will instigate just by personality alone? :D

Molon Labe
11-24-2008, 04:19 PM
Hillary is the one cabinet pick that gives me hope for the future, not because I think that she's any good, but because she is so tempermentally and professionally unsuited for diplomacy that it's guaranteed job security for the armed forces for the next four years. Can you imagine the number of wars that she will instigate just by personality alone? :D

:( That's not really a good thing.

Odysseus
11-24-2008, 05:40 PM
:( That's not really a good thing.

Speak for yourself. I've got several years to go for retirement.