Explain why not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war

[bigtree]

--and the dubious claims leading up to it?


from Katrina vanden Heuvel: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/387115/robert_gates_wrong_man_for_the_job

12/01/2008

Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but , as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment has asked Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense. It is true that President Obama will set the policy. But at a moment when his election marks an extraordinary opportunity to re-engage the world and reset America's priorities, why assemble a national security team of such narrow bandwidth? Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war --and the dubious claims leading up to it?


It's the appointment of Gates which really has a dispiriting, stay-the-course feel to it. Some will argue, and I've engaged in my fair share of such arguments, that Gates will simply be carrying out Obama's policies and vision. And a look at history shows that other great reform Presidents--Lincoln and Roosevelt--brought people into their cabinets who were old Washington hands or people they believed to be effective managers. Like Obama, they confronted historic challenges that compelled (and enabled) them to make fundamental change. But Gates will undoubtedly help to shape policy and determine which issues are given priority. For Obama, who's said he wants to be challenged by his advisors, wouldn't it have made sense to include at least one person on the foreign policy/national security team who would challenge him with some new and fresh thinking about security in the 21st century? Isn't the idea of a broader bandwidth of ideas also at the heart of this ballyhooed "team of rivals" stuff?

Powerful establishment voices have been quick to support Obama's "team of rivals" and its continuity and competence. But if Obama is really serious about changing the global perception of the US--not just in Paris, London, Tokyo and Berlin but in the Middle East, the global South and the developing world--he'd stop worrying about reassuring establishment stakeholders and the representatives of the tried, the true and the failed, and make some appointments that represent a new generation, and some genuinely new departures and new directions. Instead, as one longtime observer of US-Russian relations reminded me the other day, in Gates you have "an establishment figure with the longest institutional involvement in our failed Russia policies of anyone in DC."


Obama may believe that Gates will give him the cover and continuity he needs to carry out his planned withdrawal from Iraq. But so could many others, including Republicans like Chuck Hagel who, at least, opposed the Iraq war. By keeping Gates on not only does Obama worsen the Democratic image on national security (sending the message that even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military) but, more ominously for our future security, Gates has sounded delusionary notes about how more US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking only days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the US was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run." Extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will drain resources needed to fulfill Obama's hopes and promises for economic growth, health care, energy independence and crowd out other international initiatives.

Of course, Obama still has an opportunity to change the mindset that got us into Iraq and, more important, he has a popular mandate to challenge and change failed policies and craft a smarter security policy for this century. But he's sure making his work tougher by bringing people like Robert Gates on board.


read more: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/387115/robert_gates_wrong_man_for_the_job

[Le Taz Hot]

1. K & R

Excellent read.

[Lerkfish]

2. Obama did...isn't he the most important member of the team?

:shrug:

[speakclearly]

17. Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq

but is now happy that we won it. We have won it. Opposition to the war in Iraq has largely disappeared. There are still a few "activists" out there opposing it, but it simply is not among the top 10 things citizens are concerned with. And Obama is not about to open up some distracting issue by focusing on that, or making some big splashy announcement of how he will end it. Clearly, it is winding down and will end soon. He would make no points (except with a few die-hards) by announcing a change and taking any action and then see the situation in Iraq take a turn for the worse. He will simply let it die a quiet death and then claim credit for opposing it and "getting us out" (and we will get out).

People harping on this issue are simply hard core activists who want to focus on the past, and are not capable of looking to the future. At least Obama is trying to think ahead, instead of getting bogged down in old battles with foes who have already been deposed.

[bigtree]

20. what did we 'win'?

[Nederland]

24. Democracy in Iraq

Certainly Iraq is as much a democracy as say--Venezuela.

[bigtree]

41. the Iraqi regime is an autocracy

And, as it operates behind the protection of the forces who overthrew the last regime and helped install them into power and assumed authority it is little more than a junta.

[Nederland]

55. Obama disagrees

Obama has referred to Iraq as a democracy numerous times.

So does an international oversight group led by Canada: http://www.imie.ca/rep_Jan30.html

[bigtree]

56. he's wrong

[Nederland]

58. I guess you are entitled to an opinion

...even if the vast majority of the world thinks you are wrong.

[Lerkfish]

63. ooo! I love those kind of arguments.

"everyone but YOU is right!"

Iraq is a puppet regime, installed by an occupying force that is still occupying and can veto or override anything it votes on.

that is not a democracy, that's a loosely-held colony with a titular governing force that is not strong enough to cast out an occupying force. Notice how OUR government overrode UN's deadline for the occupation by FORCING Iraq to let us stay longer.


democracy? did the people get to vote on making the US leave?

didn't think so.

[Fireweed247]

64. The Iraqi people have been demanding we leave for years

Democracy! I can't imagine anyone believes that. WE don't even have one here though.

[Lerkfish]

68. exactly. and the Iraqi people have no power over the puppet govt.

as it continues to fellate blackwater and tatertothead

[Nederland]

82. Yup

And the American people have been demanding that we leave for years too. I suppose that means the US isn't a democracy either...

:eyes:

[Nederland]

66. I wonder

...what you will say when Obama moves US troops out in 2011 as the SOFA calls for. Will you then concede that Iraq is a democracy?

[Lerkfish]

67. your arguments are disconnected and flailing

"you can't be right about A because I can fabricate an unrelated condition B!"

unrelated conditions: whether Obama moves troops out or not years from now has no bearing on whether Iraq is a democracy NOW.

[Nederland]

75. Ok

Please itemize the criteria that a country must meet in order to be considered a democracy.

[Lerkfish]

78. nope, not falling for that tactic

I've ALREADY explained why it is not in clear, concise language.

reread my posts. You will not wear me down by moronic repetition.

[Nederland]

80. Ok

I guess I'm just confused as to why you think the people of Iraq have "no power" when they have elections that determine their leaders. To me, that is the definition of a democracy: a country whose leaders are determined by an electoral process. Sure, Iraq's elections were not perfect, but neither are the elections held by numerous countries in the world, including our own. I suppose in the end this is merely a question of semantics. The indisputable bottom line is this though: the Iraq of today is a hell of a lot closer to being a "democracy" than it was under Saddam Hussein.

[kevinds13]

77. The same Democracy

that has been asking us to leave but can't do anything about us staying there? Thats a puppet government at best. We'll see what happens when we leave AND we stop paying of all the various militia's not to fight.

[Nederland]

81. That's just posturing

The leaders of Iraq know that if the US left a year ago all hell would have broken loose. Heck, it probably would descend into total chaos even if the US left right now. So, they make a big show of wanting the US to leave to satisfy their people while in reality they push the date out to something that gives them a chance of success. Elected leaders do this sort of thing all the time. They realize what is necessary and what the people want are two different things, so they stall until the two can reconcile. That is in fact the whole idea behind having representatives: they are in place to curb the impulsive urges of the general population.

[High Plains]

21. Yes, how gauche of activists to harp about an illegal war.

Anyway, we won. It's all over. Oh, except for the 30 people who got blown up today and the 20 yesterday and the 20 the day before that...

[LSK]

28. show me ANYWHERE where Obama talks about winning and losing the war

He wants to END the war. PERIOD.

[Nederland]

33. show me ANYWHERE where Obama is different from Bush on Iraq Policy

The Bush administration has negotiated a withdrawal date for US troops. Obama says he will abide by that agreement. So tell me, what is the difference?

[LSK]

35. lets see, hes multiracial

Had to deal with that in high school and most of college

Lived in recently war torn Indonesia as a kid.

Quit his Wall Street job out of college after a few months to work on behalf of poor people.

Lived and worked on Chicago's south side trying to get desperate poor people jobs.

Had a mortgage and debt until recently.

Gee, yeah, they are identical.

:eyes:

[Nederland]

38. Cute

But I see your point. I edited my post to be more clear.

[LSK]

40. Its becoming painfully obvious that nobody really knows who Obama is

I suggest people should read his book Dream from my Father. The person who wrote that book and lived that life can never ever be considered the same as George Bush.

You might want to study the chaos in Indonesia in the 1960s because Obama spent age 6-10 living there.

[Nederland]

43. Let me get this straight

We are debating the differences between Obama and Bush with regard to Iraq policy and you want me to read his autobiography? Well, I have read his autobiography and it doesn't say anything about his position on the SOF Agreement.

[Mari333]

44. its not a war its an occupation

and it was never won. the people who started it should be in prison.

[Mari333]

45. it wasnt a war it was an occupation

a pre emptive strike on a country for no reason period.
and the people who started it should be in prison.

[spanone]

60. dream on....'won the war'...how sadly delusional

[Warpy]

3. How about because 9/11 had happened only a year previously

and it was dangerous to oppose the administration for any reason?

How about because their access to opposing opinion in the intelligence community had been cut off and they couldn't conceive of so many great experts from so many different government agencies all lying to them?

That's why.

Don't forget that out here in computerland, we have an innate mistrust of great experts, especially when they're part and parcel of a GOP government that cheated its way into power. People at the top have to trust the experts, the experts are their eyes and ears.

The point is that this horror was forced on all of us by a bunch of rabid ideologues and what is important is what we do about it now.

[moondust]

8. I suspect Sens. Byrd, Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, and others would disagree. n/t

[Warpy]

15. All from safe seats, makes a huge difference.

It did take a great deal of courage, still, to go against the criminal administration back then.

You seem to expect that type of courage as a matter of course. I don't, and I'd prefer to have Democratic Congresspeople from unsafe seats still in power and in a position to do something about the situation now.

Put the blame where it belongs, squarely onto every member of this illegally installed, criminal administration. They're the ones who ignored all the conditions that had to be met before force was considered.

[Forkboy]

26. You realize what you're saying here?

That's it's ok to do something wrong if you're in danger of losing your seat? That's not exactly the standard I'd like to see us hold in this country. You're in essence rewarding cowardice.

I'd prefer to have Democratic Congresspeople from unsafe seats still in power and in a position to do something about the situation now.

Had they known for sure they would even get the chance to do something now I could understand this point. However, they had no way of knowing how it would go or even if the chance to fix things would ever arrive.

[Warpy]

36. I certainly do

I'm telling you to judge by the conditions then, not by the conditions now.

I'm telling you to keep their feet to the fire after the new Congress gets in with a solid Democratic majority to force us out of that horror show now.

[Forkboy]

46. I am judging them on the conditions then.

That's the whole point. They did the wrong thing then based on conditions at the time.

I totally agree on your second point. :)

[treestar]

62. If they lost their seats to rethugs, it would be worse

it's not quite that simple. When you are representing the people, going against what they want isn't necessarily something you just do because you think you're right and they're wrong. It's possible, but something you would consider carefully, and if they really think attackng Iraq was going to protect them from nuclear attack from Saddam - well that's insane, but this country was insane at the time.

[Forkboy]

65. It shows what a fine line they have to walk. I don't envy them

Of course, no one ever said being a politician was easy. :)

The Patriot Act is actually the one that bugs me the most, and I really hope Obama and the Dems bring that out, hopefully to scrap it entirely, but at least to remove the most offending attacks on the Constitution.

[bvar22]

30. List of Democrats who voted NO!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[moondust]

32. Thank you! n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. If these people couldn't conceive of experts lying to them..

They are far too naive for the positions for which they are being nominated.

Not to mention that these people are themselves supposed to be "experts".

[cali]

16. revisionist nonsense

I suggest teading Pat Leahy's pre-IWR vote for a refutation of all the claims you make in your post.

[Warpy]

39. Revisionist is assuming the conditions that exist now

existed back then. They didn't.

Revisionist is thinking that the bill they voted on was carte blanche to go to war. It wasn't.

Try reading it sometime. There were specific conditions that had to be met before force could be considered. The criminals in power ignored every one of those conditions and rushed to war.

They should have been impeached then and there, but we all know a majority GOP Congress with Delay controlling the purse strings for reelection campaigns wasn't going to do that.

That's another condition that existed then that doesn't exist now.

[cali]

73. Bullshit of the worst kind.

As Senator Leahy said over and over and over the IWR was a fucking blank check.

I'm amused that YOU think you know more than he did/does.

What arrogance.

[leftofthedial]

89. thank you hillary

go back to DC now.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Don't forget, a majority of Democrats (house + senate) voted against the IWR. It was a minority of

Dems who were fooled, or more likely, supported this war of choice.

So why stuff the government with just those Dems who, for whatever reason, FUCKED UP?

It may or may not have been dangerous to oppose bush, but a majority of the Dem legislators took the risk whatever it was or wasn't.

The point is the Dems who voted with the rabid ideologues are being stuffed into the executive branch.

It's a free country and you can stand up and support putting supporters of the Iraq war into the cabinet. Or you could remain silent. Or you could oppose it.

So do you support it?

[mike_c]

50. that's a thin smoke screen at best....

Many democratic politicians did in fact oppose the war at the time, and not one of them has ever suffered any of those fabled political consequences. Just the opposite-- John Kerry lost the election in part because of his support for the war, Hillary Clinton lost the primary in part because of her support for the war, and the republican party as a whole has been kicked to the curb, in part because they supported the war crimes against humanity.

Obama could certainly have found some courageous dems from among that lot rather than elevating the sell-outs to the top of his foreign policy team.

[hendo]

4. Because

he isn't really going to withdraw troops as fast as he said he would. he said what he needed to say to get elected, and guess what, it worked.

[fla nocount]

10. Trying to fit in?

If I wasn't such a DLC Glee-Clubbing, Rahm-a Rahm-a Ding-Donging, hero-worshiping idolater, I would say that it resembles the Clinton administration with the Bush administration's executive powers.

Of course, being party loyal, I didn't say that.

[hendo]

12. fit in?

nope, i care less about fitting in than most people here. After all, thats part of why im liberal :)

[pnwmom]

5. Possibly for the same reason that Nixon, a Republican, could make the overtures

to China that no Democrat had had support for.

Obama already has liberal support in his goal to leave Iraq; with these people behind him, he will have less opposition from the right than he otherwise would.

[TwilightGardener]

6. My thinking is, Obama doesn't want to have to worry about the DoD right at first--

he wants to focus on the economy, because the path out of Iraq has been more or less established, and the way forward in Afghanistan has been too. Gates has also been good at managing the military in terms of punishing screw-ups (at least in the Air Force and at Walter Reed), so it gives Obama a chance to put the entire military on the back-burner until he's ready to deal with it. I hope his REAL appointment for SecDef is better, though.

[Mari333]

92. the wars (occupations) are whats BANKRUPTING the economy

and they need to end now.
www.costofwar.com
add to that many US lives that will be lost in those illegal occupations as long as obama keeps it on the back burner.

[Bigmack]

7. I think people in government...

lose sight of the real costs of war... the long-term suffering and loss to the society and economy.

I hold out little hope this batch will be any different. Obama and his appointments are the smartest guys in the room, so they may prove my cynicism wrong.

My hope is that Obama and the new wave will realize that we simply cannot afford to maintain this level of militarism and imperialism.

[AmyCamus]

9. The picks of Clinton and Gates sends a clear message to the anti-war grassroots.

...

[leftofthedial]

70. I think Obama's message to anyone left of center is extremely clear.

And that message is "fuck you, suckah!"

[earth mom]

83. Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

:grr:

[leftofthedial]

90. majorly disappointing

though not surprising.

he's being true to his record in national politics. it's why he was fifth on my list during the early primaries.

[AmyCamus]

88. Yup.

The Supremes are next up.

[Dhalgren]

11. Let's see...

DLC? Check! Clintonites? Big double check! Republicans? Check!

It's the 90s all over again, except starting in a deeper hole! YeeHaw!

I wonder what role President Obama will have for Harriet Myers? Hmmm....

:rofl:

[shoeshock]

14. why

what kind of a question is that


our system is actually a one party system -- hello???

[BuyingThyme]

19. Shut up and applaud.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. !!

:applause: :silly: x(

[AmyCamus]

84. You betcha!!

...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Political expediency then, Political expediency now.

Obama wants to look "tough" on defense. Just as Hillary, et al, did when they voted for Bush's war.

Obama is sending a message. "I'm not a threat to the establishment."

[DerekG]

34. He was never a threat to the establishment

This con man's gonna be killing Iraqis and Afghanis for years.

And at least half of us will be making excuses for him.

[ellacott]

42. Con man

Wow

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Incredibly disappointing.

This team will have to be watched closely -- I don't trust the lot of them, and will view anything they claim with a great deal of skepticism.

[glitch]

29. That's a good thing -- being lulled into complacency is not the path we want, ever again.

And I very much doubt Obama would want a complacent citizenry anyway.

[LSK]

27. I believe the leader of the team did

:shrug:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. Isn't Gates only staying on for a year or so?

While I'm not sure I'd want him as SOD on a long-term basis, having him remain in that post for another year may not be such a bad idea considering Obama's need to "hit the ground running" and make some critical decisions about our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq come January and, based on my (albeit limited) knowledge of him, he hardly seems like the worst of the worst when it comes to Republicans. If, as it has been rumored, Gates was more or less "forced" on GWB by Poppy Bush (whose respect for international law and overall moderation in regards to foreign policy made him seem decent and sensible) and played a role in preventing a US-led (or supported) attack on Iran, then I can feel pretty secure about Obama's decision to at least temporarily retain Gates at Defense. I'd love to see Wes Clark in that position more, however, and hope that Obama selects him for the post at a later date.

[FrenchieCat]

37. The top of the National Security Team, Barack Obama did not support

the Iraq War.

That is all required to be said on the subject.

The rest is a lot of bloviating, as each person on the team
has already agreed to carry out Barack Obama's vision.

I'm not sure what part of that folks don't understand.

[fla nocount]

52. It's not a lack of understanding.

It's a betrayal of trust. Some folks understand plenty and suspect even more. The same players responsible for the economic mess are back again, the same players responsible for the Iraq mess are back again, the same administration responsible for alienating the citizenry and making the neo-con agenda seem a reasonable and viable alternative is back again.

To say it looks like the Clinton administration is an accurate statement of fact. To say that it now has the Bush administration's executive powers is also a factual statement. The combination makes some who volunteered, canvassed and donated for change feel uneasy and yes, betrayed.

If BO's actions and statements reflected those of a peoples champion instead of a corporate whore with teeth, that would help in the development of the blind trust needed to quell dissent in the parties' base but instead we're getting the arrogance of the untouchables that we've grown so accustomed to.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Barack Obama is the leader at the top of those you refer to......

and to call that "bretrayal" when he was the one on the ballot that we voted for, is being an unreasonable skeptical about what is still to come. We all can make statements about a future that has not yet arrived....and see it as we choose to see it. That's the easy part.

The hard part is left up to Barack Obama.
I have every reason to believe that a man who organized the poor,
worked as a Civil Rights Attorney and a Constitutional Scholar,
and who was against the War from the Get,
and has espoused a more progressive outlook than most of those he ran against,
has not provided me with any sense that as the leader of this country,
he will allow others to now determine for him the vision that he sees for this country,
and that he has projected for the last 2 years that he ran for office.

Skeptics should go ahead with their speculation of what will happen, as debate is never bad....
but they are only speculating and nothing more......and doesn't really mean that what they say will come to pass.

[fla nocount]

72. Leader? Been following politics long?

BO like Carter and Clinton is the boy from nowhere. He answered a casting-call, he didn't write the script. I doubt that he had much choice in the cast either. We don't know who the director and producer are is the problem but there's growing suspicion that it's the same guys who put on the last show. We all know who the audience is.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Like I said, the skeptics can have their say......

But this is no movie.
This is all too real.
He didn't answer a casting call, Barack Obama made a decision to run
for the highest office in the land.
The audience, as you call us, are the American voters last I checked,
and they like you and I hold divergent views.

The voters that Obama owes his victory to are comprised of various groups with a degree of overlap,
Liberal Political Activist being one such group, but by no means the only one....
as well we must count in the numbers that led to victory; minorities, the youth and surbanites.

In terms of "growing suspicion"...last I heard, suspicion is not admissible as evidence of
anything, anywhere except for perhaps in the most backwards of countries.

[Le Taz Hot]

87. "He answered a casting call, he didn't write the script."

Excellent!

[AmyCamus]

85. Obama voted withn the pro-Iraq War hawks every chance he got.

Identical voting record as Hillary.

[democrattotheend]

47. The head of the team did. That's what matters.

And despite the nuances they exaggerated in the primaries, he and Hillary are basically on the same page now about how to proceed in Iraq.

[AmyCamus]

86. With words only, not actions.

Voted with Clinton on every Iraq War vote.

[Solon]

48. As long as he doesn't listen to them for advice, and they behave like good puppets...

will I not have a problem with them. Its obvious that these so called experts are idiots when it comes to foreign policy.

[Fumesucker]

49. Most intelligent people don't make good puppets...

Of course, the intelligence of war supporters is in question so you might have a point.

Personally I would prefer intelligent people who don't need to be puppets in these kinds of positions.

[Solon]

51. I would prefer that as well, but I can settle for this group of imbeciles...

I don't call any war supporter intelligent, ends up making the word meaningless.

[Fumesucker]

53. It does make me wonder though..

Why an intelligent person would want imbecilic puppets in positions of authority under him?

Particularly imbecilic puppets that disagree with him on a very basic level.

Does not compute, as Vger said right before smoke started coming out. (obscure Star Trek reference)

[many a good man]

54. The world weeps

The world was hoping for something more than a marginal improvement over neocon/realist imperialist foreign affairs.

The world craves for a new kind of global leadership from the United States. The world now has to lower expectations and hope it gets pleasantly surprised.

[liberalpragmatist]

57. Is there evidence Jim Jones supported the war?

From everything I've read about him, he seems to be a foreign policy realist. But he seems to have never uttered a statement either in favor of or against the war in Iraq back in 2002. That would make sense, since he was a uniformed officer at the time.

But it's silly to assume that he supported the war -- lots of career military folks, esp. those of a realist bent like Jones -- opposed it strongly.

[ieoeja]

71. Is there evidence ROBERT GATES supported the Occupation?

He openly advocated for direct negotiations with Iran years before the start of the Iraqi Occupation. He has been highly critical of the way the Occupation itself was launched. And he was a member of the Iraq Study Group that concluded we should either (a) get out of Iraq immediately, or (b) bring Iran and Syria into Iraqi negotiations.

The Occupation sounds very much like the sort of thing Gates would have disapproved. For that matter, his refusal to serve as the first Secretary of Homeland Security makes me suspect he disapproved of the entire GW cabal.

I can not find anything saying he supported the Occupation. Neither can I find anything saying he opposed it. But then, he was president of Texas A&M at the time, so that is hardly surprising.

[treestar]

61. It was tough to oppose the war at the time it was starting

It was much nearer 911.

It would take a great deal of courage to have opposed it out loud then.

Then there are voters who were for it when it started but now know it should not go on.

They have to do as O says or he'll fire them. The good part of keeping Gates for a while is that he knows what is going on there. He can hardly keep the war going if Obama doesn't want it to stay going. Neither can any of the others. How do underlings do the opposite of what their boss wants and stay employed? And this employment is public.

[Mari333]

93. if they didnt oppose it back then, they were cowards and deserve to be called cowards

and they are cowards now.

[leftofthedial]

69. because if any of them had, that would be actual change, which is hard,

and which pisses off the bosses,

rather than rhetorical change, which is easier and lets everyone pretend that it means whatever change is most important to them personally, even though it means that in the final analysis nothing actually changes. The bosses love that shit.

[JVS]

76. They must all be significantly less intelligent than him

[otohara]

79. Easier to Manipulate

they all fucked up in the first place.

He can always throw that out as a friendly reminder.

[MasonJar]

91. Let's see: we overthrew, for no legitimate reason, a democratically elected

Iraqi government that was at least secular (even if barely democratic) and replaced it with the worst kind of theocracy, in which the radical Shia rule. Therefore, we have micromanaged the depletion of the rights of a large part of the country, turned it back into the dark ages, and, most significantly, abrogated the rights of all Iraqi women, who under Saddam had the right of college, western dress and at least freedom from oppression (in equal measure with the men.) Great job. If Obama calls this democracy, then he needs to read more about Lincoln, with a little Jefferson, Madison, Mason and Washington thrown in. (And that is just for starters.)

[Mari333]

94. hell yes n/t

[noiretextatique]

96. yep...that's exactly what happened

thanks for summing it up.

[MasonJar]

95. I am astonished that Obama did not choose Hagel for the only position

he would be suited too, since he is a right winger on all other issues. Richard Clarke and Mrs Wilson would have been superior choices, as would Sibel Edmonds. Gates is a pathetic choice, IMHO.