Not a War Cabinet
Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 02:12AM Hillary Clinton, General James Jones, Susan Rice, and Robert Gates the heads of a new Peace Corps.
The team that President Elect BO has put together have one goal. Shift power from the Pentagon to the Diplomats.
All three choices — Senator Clinton as secretary of state; General James Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena. Changing military response to diplomatic social welfare as the primary function. The money, which would come out of the military's budget, would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states. Which of course will fail miserably.
As for Susan Rice she was in charge of the US response to what was going on in Rwanda during the Clinton administration and what was result there? They washed their hands of it and sat back and watched people get massacred.
This is a team that will do nothing but try to talk our enemy's to death. Money will be stripped from the military and thrown into the pit of Foggy Bottom, where there is more fog in the diplomats heads than in the streets.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (24)
Too true.
Troll - If Obama had an ounce of intelligence he'd have appointed Batman as SOS. He's an idiot though, isn't he? ;)
Eisenhower himself warned of concentrating power in the pentagon, people do what they know and soldiers know war so that is their fall back position.
Its why you and your allies are involved in what has been so far the worst decision of the 21st century, Iraq!
yes we have faught people that blow up innnocent women and children that's a bad thing
No you have created people that blow up innocent women and children, including your own forces
A 2002 poll in the Washington Post showed that a huge majority of Americans thought Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11, it was upwards of 70%.
How on earth can a population be kept so ignorant?
"yes we have faught people that blow up innnocent women and children that's a bad thing"
Troll, there were no Terrorists in Iraq before the Invasion of Iraq. In the eyes of most people though a local dictator is better than a foreign democracy. The decision to go to war caused a maassive increase in the support for Islamic Fundamentalism in Iraq and that caused the Terrorism problem there.
Troll - If Obama had an ounce of intelligence he'd have appointed Batman as SOS. He's an idiot though, isn't he? ;)
LOL too true.
Troll, there were no Terrorists in Iraq before the Invasion of Iraq. In the eyes of most people though a local dictator is better than a foreign democracy. The decision to go to war caused a massive increase in the support for Islamic Fundamentalism in Iraq and that caused the Terrorism problem there.
Seamus,
That depends on how you define "terrorist". First Saddam's regime was terrorism as state power. Next, if this article from the New Yorker in 2004 is accurate, then Islamism had been on the rise since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam needed the clerics to maintain power after '91.
In the West, Iraqis developed a reputation for cosmopolitan modernity that is now decades out of date. In order to win the support of Iraq’s clerics, Saddam obliged people to adopt a harsh form of traditional Islam.
Now from the American perspective there were many failings in the case made to justify the war and the deaths of America's servicemen. But, that Saddam's regime was hateful and hated seems beyond doubt. And your statement that people prefer a local dictator to a foreign democracy is a very dubious proposition. If true, when will we see Japan's new Tojo emerge or the next Hitler in Germany?
I should add that many mistakes have been made since the fall of Saddam's regime, which undermined the case for democracy in Iraq. That doesn't mean the Iraqi people necessarily reject the "foreign democracy" as much as they rejected the failings of the American administrators.
One more thing. Troll, I don't share your sense of dread with Obama's foreign policy team. In fact, so far so good as far as I'm concerned.
Seamus,
"In the eyes of most people though a local dictator is better than a foreign democracy."
Not to those who have to live under such a dictatorship..and the end product is that it is 'their' democracy.
Your opinion is not the same as 'in the eyes of most people',
Just how would you know such a thing, I doubt you have ever been to the ME, or even know an Iraqui.
Perhaps you have been reading too many of those anti-war pamphlets you socialists set such store by!...
Obama has picked a fairly centrist foreign policy team thus far, horrifying the far left here in the U.S. far more than the far right (who wouldn't accept anyone he appointed anyway - spite runneth deep).
Not so sure of that mahons
I was listening to a very conservative talk host a few days ago, from Bill Cunningham out of Chicago.
He said several times how impressed he was with the cabinet choices.
Karl Rove said similar things. As have many other conservatives.
Your larger point- that the moveon.org "get a life " crowd are upset,[ and deserve to be] is true -- but its not true that the "far right" hasn't been happy with Obama's judgment.
Unless you wish to say that Rove and Cunningham are centrists, in which case we've really been making progress.
Bill Cunningham is about as centrist as Noel Cunningham, and Karl Rove has had his five minutes of fame. No doubt many thinking conservatives are impressed or at least not horrified by the choices (how could they possibly dislike Gates?). I was pointing to the extreme right (Troll) and not the mere right (your good self sir).
A 2002 poll in the Washington Post showed that a huge majority of Americans thought Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11, it was upwards of 70%.
How on earth can a population be kept so ignorant?
Peter try watching Fox News for an hour or so and i suspect you will find your answer.
What was the date of that poll? I couldn't find it. I'd like to read it.
Hey thanks a lot for such a wonderful information. I was actually looking for these information for quite a long time and i believe i have landed at the right page. I really liked your ways of expressing thoughts. You write too well. Moreover your article contains some worthy information which i guess will help lot of people. Thanks once again. Keep up the good work. God bless you.
insurance definitions
Mahons -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Petr - Thanks. I am trying to find the actual poll question posed, as the numbers surveyed (1003) would seem to be a poor sample for a definitive poll. I don't doubt that many folkd here thought wrongly that Saddam somehow was involved, but I'd like to see the actual question. For instance, a question - do you think it likely he had some involvement might very well have been answered yes at the time. Do you think Saddam was solely responsible I think would have likely been answered no.
In any event, I am sure the natives of Tarasov-land have their own polls (poles?) which might not reflect happily upon them. True?
'For instance, a question - do you think it likely he had some involvement might very well have been answered yes at the time. Do you think Saddam was solely responsible I think would have likely been answered no. '
Mahons,
Do you know that a supermarket tabloid in the US, claimed that in the smoke of the Trade Centres, a vision of Osama Bin Laden/devil rose up over the rubble.
But yes, you make a good point about the type of question asked in the poll.
Nevertheless, the government did deliberately make a false association, in a State of the Union address, I believe, in order to justify a military attack on Iraq.
Pinky -supermarket tabloids the world over make all sorts of claims. And there is no doubt that the outgoing Administration endeavored to link Saddam to certain terrorist acts which frankly was a foolish course of action. He was evil enough without adding to the list of things against him.
'He was evil enough without adding to the list of things against him.'
But Mahons, he was ALWAYS evil. Even when he was in the US geopolitical 'goody two shoes' list.
So, logically, that negates THAT reason for invading Iraq.
Mahons - A sample of 1000 is about standard. Fair point about the phrasing of the question though. That will always make a huge difference.
For instance, a question - do you think it likely he had some involvement might very well have been answered yes at the time. Do you think Saddam was solely responsible I think would have likely been answered no.
A 'yes' answer to either question would be the wrong answer. The people were sold a lie and they bought it without question.