Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in

[IndianaGreen]

Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in

The president-elect's silence on the Gaza crisis is undermining his reputation in the Middle East

Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 January 2009 15.55 GMT

Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations.

Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.

But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/obama-gaza-israel

[chimpymustgo]

1. I agree completely. He seems to be going along with the massacre. He needs to show a "new kind of

leadership". He doesn't need to make any policy statements, but he can call for peace - and the promise of working toward it after he takes office.

[tom_paine]

33. Yes, at every step thus far, Obama has severely bent to the wishes of the Kristols and Cheneys of

the world.

I am trying not to get too upset too early at these VERY bad signs, his silence on the invasion of Gaza the last in what is now a fairly long line.

I keep trying to remember he hasn't taken office yet, nor governed for one single day as Emperor, but the signs are bad, trending towards very VERY bad.

I have been saying for a long time now, that if Obama is merely another Clinton, triangulating (post-partisanizing?) and being date-raped by the Bushies "for the good of the country" which has been going on since FDR buried Prescott Bush's High Treason "for the good of the country", then we are pretty well as fucked as we would be if McBush/Crazy has stolen the election, only a little slower.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

I don't want to believe it, but I cannot ignore the repeated evidence of my own eyes. Maybe it's Brilliant Strategy, but it SMELLS as rankly as "Keeping Our Powder Dry" did for the last 8 years.

I am witholding judgement, and trying to also give alternative hypotheses of the more charitable interpretations of Obama's pre-inauguration moves, pretty much all of them being bad signs of Clintonian bending to the Bushian Will.

Please let me be wrong. I am witholding judgement but more concerned by the minute.
Please let me be wrong. I am witholding judgement but more concerned by the minute.
Please let me be wrong. I am witholding judgement but more concerned by the minute.
Please let me be wrong. I am witholding judgement but more concerned by the minute.

[acmavm]

35. Oh phooey. Obama has made plenty of statements about the economy

and other issues that he most certainly could be saying something about this horrific slaughter. Just as a citizen of the world upset and disgusted by Israeli barbarity it reason enough. And that he doesn't should tell everybody something.

But folks, Obama did not get where he is today by opposing big business and the Israeli lobby.

And don't start bitching about 'he hasn't taken office yet'. NO decent honest ethical caring human being should keep silent at a time like this.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Silence = ?

[Idealism]

3. I guess the US voted for Change, not the entire world?

:(

[IndianaGreen]

4. LGBTs were the first to find out that change did not apply to them

Rick Warren's invocation and postponement of repeal of DADT. Who will be next?

[Deja Q]

8. Funny; I have a relative who is LGBT and she's in full support of Obama.

And she keeps up with the news too.

I don't know what sort of proof people want, or at what point does mentioning family even be of bother - they can take it at face value, think I'm a liar. Either way, if they disagree, they can bugger off. All I know is, the world is made up of all types and Obama was consistent on the GLBT issue from even in the debates.

People need to grow the fuck up.

[Two Americas]

15. I believe you

I believe you when you say that you have a relative who is LGBT and she's in full support of Obama.

I also believe you when you say "Obama was consistent on the GLBT issue from even in the debates."

So what?

No one would say otherwise. You are presenting these items as though they should mean something, should refute someone's argument. They refute arguments that no one is making.

You are saying that because one person you know holds one particular opinion, that we all should. You are saying that if a politician is consistent, we should not oppose his positions.

[donco6]

16. And this has to do with Israel . . . how?

It's not even pertinent to the GLBT issue. Who gives a shit if you have a relative who's gay and supports Obama?

[jaysunb]

18. Maybe it was in response to post #4

You think ?? :evilfrown:

[John Q. Citizen]

14. For me it goes back to FISA. He completely flipped flopped on that. Human rights and

civil rights don't appear to be a priority for Obama based on the record so far.

It's still early and once Obama actually becomes the leader of the largest empire the world has ever known, we will see what he does with that extra power.

I'm hoping it isn't what he did with his lesser power because that hasn't been very inspiring.

[truedelphi]

19. Believe me, you were not the first.

Those of us concerned about the economy realized the gig was up when he

1) Voted for the abomination called the BailOut Bill in Early October.
2) appointed Geithner, Rubun and Summers to key economic posts.

And then there's the matter of Rahm Emmanuel. That sort of shows how his Presidency will go. Cannot get anyone more AIPAC than Rahm.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Sorry; I have to pull pity-rank here

The non-religious were the first to be resoundingly fucked with. We are, of course, despicable, so it doesn't really get much notice.

I'm being gently sarcastic about this, but I still view the whole McClurkin and Warren thing through the prism of the extreme power of religion. Obama, whether he really is as extreme a believer as he claims or not, has DEFINITELY actively and aggressively sought out organized religion to cleave off huge slabs of support wholesale. I don't think he has any particular beef against homosexuality at all; it's just an accidental bit of unintended consequences picked up by allying himself to primitives. The racial/cultural identification so slyly evoked on a huge and public scale in South Carolina just happened to trigger an unfortunate tendency in that subculture. Warren's evangelical feel-good velvet strait jacket of cheery supernatural certainty just happened to also have that creepy ugliness as part of the package deal.

To a great degree, an argument can fairly be raised that it's fundamental christianity's problems with sex OF ANY SORT that is manifested in its special queasiness and outright hostility toward non-heterosexual sex, but that's a topic for another time.

Joking aside, I simply view the undeniable double-dealing with gay supporters as more a manifestation of a greater evil: the integration of religion and politics. The very flavor of this campaign has been overly-spiced to a tongue-burning degree, and although some of that is because of the race issue, the cultish feel of the belief in unsubstantiated claims smacks of nothing so much as religion. You can argue sex. You can argue comportment and manners and fairness, but you can't argue god. This one goes to eleven. I have yet to see ANY argument against the complete acceptance of same-sex unions as equal to opposite-sex ones stemming from ANYTHING BUT RELIGION.

I am not pleased with the way things are going, as is obvious, and I don't think people realize the extremity of the danger now that Pandora's popped the lid. Religion plays to win, and it never gives back any ground. One can easily look at the history of this republic as an ongoing attempt to keep religion at bay, and in this, we are undeniably losing.

[tom_paine]

34. See my post #33. I pray not, but in the end it could be every single person who voted for him.

Trying not to be cynical, but the last 8 years have shown pretty conclusively that there is something, whatever it is it's SOMETHING or many somthings, going on behind the blinding idiocy of the American Toady Media and Noise Machine and whatever incoherent nonsense they peddle today as Conventional Wisdom.

I hope I am so very wrong about this, and as I said before I will withold judgement until I am SURE.

I wish I could dismiss your concerns as overwrought.

But after the last 8 years, 28 really, I would be the biggest kind of fool to do so.

I hope we are both mistaken, and there is an alternate hypothesis that is true besdies the usual Democratic bending to the Bushian Will that has become a staple of our Empire for 28 years and maybe 75 years...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

[Deja Q]

5. Economically speaking, if the US goes down, the dominos will fall in line.

Given the Israel/Palestine situation has been going on for decades...

And as Obama isn't even in office yet, for people to already denounce him as an "epic fail" or whatever - somebody needs to go to the shrink and it ain't me this time.

[brianna69]

6. Let them solve their own problems

Obama isn't president yet, this is Bush's responsiblity until January 20. For those who can't understand that too bad. The US has enough problems at home to deal with as our economy is on the verge of collapse. There is nothing Obama can do right now about the Israel Gaza crisis and I am sick of people acting like Obama has some magic wand that can sweep the problems of the world away. Obama should do this Obama should do that. blah, blah, blah

[Deja Q]

9. Well said. Very well said indeed.

:thumbsup:

[emilyg]

12. I'm not in love with O

Your post is right on, though.

[theoldman]

13. I agree. Obama should stay out of this until he becomes the boss.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Is Obama hoping Gaza will be over by January 20?

To the "there is only one President at a time" apologists: that excuse did not stop Obama from making extended remarks on the economy.

[DCKit]

26. Damned if he do, damned if he don't.

The Repukes and their MSM enablers would tear him to shreds the second he opens his mouth - interferring with a sitting pResident, pro-Isreal or pro-Palestine (either with racist or religious overtones) and probably a whole raft of shit I haven't even thought of. He's better off letting Shrub and the shoe lady fuck this one up all on their own.

[Cronopio]

32. No one expects Bush to do anything about it though, because he never has.

And Obama can always speak out. He's a damn good speaker when he wants to be. So a lot of people are rightly wondering why he isn't saying *anything* about it now. As President-elect, he can affect the situation by signaling future US policy and he should be doing that.

He doesn't need the Oval Office to show leadership or to implement change.

[stillcool]

7. No way he can come out against..

the establishment of a prominent U.S. presence in the Middle-east, unless he wants to be dead. Bombs going off in Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, India, and god knows where else are not isolated incidents, unrelated to each other.

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Game Plan (1986) and The Grand Chessboard (1997) present global views almost wholly based on Mackinder’s concepts
New York Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs article by Brzezinski from September/October 1997:
"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.
Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy
************************
Colin Gray : "By far the most influential geopolitical concept for Anglo-American statecraft has been the idea of a Eurasian `heartland,' and then the complementary idea-as-policy of containing the heartland power of the day within, not to, Eurasia. From Harry S Truman to George Bush, the overarching vision of US national security was explicitly geopolitical and directly traceable to the heartland theory of Mackinder. . . . Mackinder's relevance to the containment of a heartland-occupying Soviet Union in the cold war was so apparent as to approach the status of a cliché."
*******************
"A victorious Roman general, when he entered the city, amid all the head-turning splendor of a `Triumph,' had behind him on the chariot a slave who whispered into his ear that he was mortal. When our statesmen are in conversation with the defeated enemy, some airy cherub should whisper to them from time to time this saying: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
- Sir Halford Mackinder, 1919

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Imagine if he was the president.

Last I knew he was the still president-elect.

[glowing]

11. Well, the world is learning what we've been feeling with certain selections

and the whole Rick Warren thing.. But what did they expect.. the Presidency is owned.. I guess he signed his for the seat in his blood or something.. I don't know what changes them from caring to asshole.

[truedelphi]

20. I remember early on in his Primary he made a case for

Paying more attention to the Palestinian side of the equation. Of course the Primary dragged on for ever so that would be a good 20 months or so ago.

Than he started attending AIPAC meetings.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Hillary said the same thing, in the early days of Clinton Administration

She even dared to suggest that Palestinians had legitimate grievances against Israel. I loved her then!

[truedelphi]

23. Didn't know that about Hillary.

Do remember my intial excitement when the Clintons won.

But then close to one hundred people died a Wacco, including seventeen pregnant women and of course children. For the sake of the FBI and ATF showing off, since even Newsweek said anyone could have picked up David Koresh at any time, since he routinely left his compound to get videos at the local video store

[IndianaGreen]

24. David Koresh also went jogging

He could have been picked up at any time.

The brunt of the blame belongs to ATF. The ATF supervisors send their agents on a raid which they knew was already expected. Low paid GS-7 agents were sacrificed so that their bosses would look good.

[truedelphi]

25. I'd agree that the fault was with the ATF if it had happened overnight

But it took them weeks to build up to that final destructive scenario. And since Clinton was Commander in Chief, he should have taken over and seen to ti that no lives were lost.

Supposedly 500 million dollars a day was spent there.

Even if no one died, examining where that money went would have been a good idea.

One young FBI officer begged his commanders to have fire trucks on hand, as he knew tht the compound could blow up due to residents using gas or propane heaters. They told him: "We cannot. We don't have the money."

The press was allowed a station five miles away and could come no closer.

Years later, Infrared expert Carlos Ghigliotti would die under mysterious circumstances, right before he put the finishing touches on his analysis of video that showed that the ATF agent fired on thepeople as they tried to flee the burning buildings.

John Conyers was one of the few to raise a stink about it. He held hearings but no one in command at the scene ever was punished for the massacre, that I recall.

[lamp_shade]

17. Yawn. n/t

[Cha]

27. Not exactly "yawn"..just

a little bitterfest.

[Skittles]

28. he can't say "present" this time

[Hawkowl]

29. Disturbing

Obama should've at least condemned violence by both sides. He could have identified with the majority of BOTH Palestinians and Israelis who want peace.

One president at a time means that Obama is merely a citizen and can voice an opinion.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. To be fair, he's in a truly shitty position

Anything he says or does will be viewed as politically motivated. He's not in the driver's seat yet, either, and that's sort of the way it goes.

The image I keep remembering is Joe Gideon in "All That Jazz", looking in the mirror and saying: "It's showtime."