Obama's National Security Team
 

In his pre-Election campaign, Obama said he'd be seeking advice from all spectrums of the political establishment. And while 130 members of the House and 23 members of the senate voted against the war in Iraq, Obama hasn't chosen one of them for his National Security cabinet. So is packing his cabinet solely with advisors that voted in favour of the war really an example of the 'change' he was touting?

he's getting people who can get his shit done., e.g. pull of of iraq. kucinich sure is a sweet guy, but could he get the pentagon off his ass & moving? hm.... i doubt that. obama is to set the mission and his cabinet is to execute it. so you want good performers here, not ideologues.

his national security advisor is a tough ass marine who's against the iraq war. hillary, i am not a fan, but she's got the international prestige. janet napolitano has experience with immigration issues. gates is respected by the military, he just needs a new mission to execute.

best of all, obama's brought the awesome samantha power back on board at state (ok, i confess a crush on the woman) even though she called hillary "a monster". ha ha haha.

He's put together quite a disappointing foreign policy team. They're a bunch of globalists and oil men.

hmmm we'll see. jones was actually a lobbyist for the u.s. chamber of commerce in one of these fake grassroots organizations for "21st century energy" which seeks development of alternative energies (as well as increase in domestic exploitation of oils). on the other hand he was an early critic of the iraq war. but again, we'll see what they do when they do...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...James_L._Jones

How does voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 guarantee that these people are still in favor of continuing the war? In 2003, after President Bush's State of the Union, only 27% of the American public opposed military action in Iraq. In all likely hood, you or at least the majority of the left who voted for Obama supported the war under false pretenses five years ago. American politics are far more intricate than a vote for or against the resolution. All spectrums of the political establishment are not represented on the yay or nay of the 2002 resolution and assuming that each side voted so for the same ideological reasons is preposterous.

http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/12/2...re_of_the_same


On the board of Chevron - yeah - he's going to do things in our best interests.

it's some unique and overall good choices, the last thing you want are yes men and strong differing personalities should really be the best way to get as many options as can be put on the table

and besides, this isn't Bush, Obama is a much strong willed person, and he will be making the final call, and to have him at the left of his advisers is a good thing

Napolitano is a very wise choice, the immigration issue will very soon become a big deal, what has been happening in Tijuana and the murders in the drug trade (which have already crossed over into parts of the southwest) will start to seep into an issue of national security, which is why i think she was picked

Clinton was a bold move, but certainly better then Bill Richardson (i know you disagree !@#$%!) and certainly better the John Kerry, her international reputation can certainly help, although i will be curious to see where Biden shall be in the scheme of things

"Zbig said in endorsing Obama: “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.” Obama’s alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig’s university textbook."

Laughable. Should Obama be be ignorant of different cultures and people?

if i read or hear mentioned american politics once more i think i might die of vomit suicide.

can you do it on a webcam?

i think you should know that marleypumpkin is a follower of american isolationist ru paul, i mean ron paul! ru paul knows about trans-everything; ron paul is afeared of non-whites.

yours

you'd have to get a ticket to america in order to do that, and you body might catch fire upon entering american airspace.

do it in yours, we'll watch.

like this

I don't have reply for something so boring.

you want quality answers for your suicide offers?

garbage in, garbage out

 

Well aware. I just find it bizarre that all these resentful Republicans and tinfoil hat Libertarians aren't really arguing against policy but instead are trying to undermine the Obama's platform of change by calling the change into doubt. Has Rovian politics really become so natural to political discourse?

I'm not an isolationist, I believe a citizen of any country, can do what ever they feel is right for the world, but don't force foreign policies & beliefs on others.

& in case you don't know Zbigniew has done more to create the crisis over seas than Bush.

pbradley:

I believe he's the President of the United States, not the world. He will be sworn to uphold the Constitution, which he never talks about doing.

I heard Canadian politics have gotten pretty interesting.

i dont know, i was looking forward to see richardson at this job, he's an effective diplomat who's negotiated cease fires and hostage releases and nuclear talks, while hillary only ducked under sniper fire in bosnia (chuckles), but let's see what happens. obama needed to do something with hillary-- i'm still not a big fan of her.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Libertarian. I question authority - no matter who that authority is. If Obama decides to hire someone who's currently on the board of Chevron or a woman whose husband is responsible for NAFTA onto his foreign policy team, you can be assured that I will be calling him on it.

Change, whatever - I'm not a political zombie. If Obama fucks up, and it sure looks like he's on the path to fucking up - I'm going to talk about it.

i dont think he was referring to you with that tinfoil reference, ha ha ha.

Yup - I know that. But I hate to see people just lock step behind any politician.

Why, 'cuz I don't bow down to yr god?

Since when does having a thoughtful approach to foreign relations mean that he is President of the world? And Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama may have made compromises in order to make the Patriot Act more transparent instead of voting against it (and failing), but that doesn't mean he is against civil liberties.

it's the famous honeymoon... period? effect? what you call it.

i didnt know jim jones was in the board of chevron-- whoa!!!!

ok, i feel like putting on a tinfoil hat myself...

well, anyway, we'll see what happens. im willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt at this point in time.

Yup - he seems to be on the road but not all the way there. - I hope I'll be proven wrong. It's definitely a varied team, but I would have been much happier if his team leaned more to the left. I feel like so much needs to be overcome over the past 8 years.

Voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act, & voting for the bailout, he compromises the same people who elected him.

People post about politics on forums because they're bored with themselves, the world, or something is an urgent matter with thier daily lives. Apathy ensues because it means fuck all, and it's always is nothing more than a bit of insignificant ranting. Say what you like.

And the only option other than being in lock step is to be a skeptical sniper? You really must be beyond cynical if you think a person cannot defend a politician without being a crony.

He reauthorized the Patriot Act with amendments to clarify rights of detainees while also voting against the extending wiretap provision and, thus, kept the bill provisional and not permanent. Would you rather him vote against it and have it pass without these amendments?

And voting for the bailout is compromising the people? Bullocks.

How can you defend the appointment of a Chevron board member? Haven't we had enough of big oil in our government already? It's better to question than to just accept. We definitely need checks and balances and that's part of the responsibility of the people. I'm always going to ask why.

the agenda seems to be getting the big things done that require bipartisan support first: ending the iraq war, passing health care, energy, etc., and avoid the clinton fuckup of derailing his public support early on with small
"controversial" issues (gays in the military early in clinton's first term, while an issue of fairness, is what got gingrich elected).

congress & the people are going to be more willing to support an iraq withdrawal coming from a hawkish marine general than from say ufo-sighting kucinich.

so i'd be looking for his second term for the more left-leaning policies. right now the plan as i see it is to get things done, something washington hasn't been good at for decades now.

People who post on forums at all are bored with the world, if you consider the internet unworldly. And "bored with themselves" sounds like some existential point that you've misunderstood as a negative quality. Perhaps you mean bored by their own inability to find activity? And again, posting online at all seems like a common place for procrastinating urgent matters.

I like what I said.

Have you seen one reply of mine to the Chevron point? Or should I jump on your bandwagon to prove that I don't jump on bandwagons? I've never said all criticism of Obama is bad and I never would. If you bring up a legitimate point, I'll look into it myself but I'm not going to assume that all critical points are legitimate because they are critical.

Any form of the Patriot Act puts the Constitution in jeopardy, which if he taught law anywhere, he would recognize compromising the Constitution is not tolerated in American law.

& if you think giving the international bankers more governmental powers is good, you're sorely mistaken. Just expect the inevitable Martial Law.

Obama isn't a Supreme Court Justice, he does not have the authority to declare legislation unconstitutional, nor do you. I thought you preferred the separation of powers?

And your second point is bizarre conspiracy slippery slope nonsense.

it cracks me up to see you arguing earnestly with marleypumpkin and porkmarras. you do make good points, but you realize they are wasted, right? if you're doing it as an exercise in rhethoric for your own sake, then please, keep bench pressing.

I believe the the heading on the Constitution is "We The People", not "We The Supreme Court". Anyone has the right to speak out against clearly un-constitutional laws.

& for so-called conspiracy theory, yr right. I'm just some nut who made up the IMF, World Bank, & Club of Rome.

The controlled environment helps. Last time I talked politics with my Ron Paulite friend, he was playing poker with the other guys and I think I screwed over his game.