If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama: Bush Term 3?

Truth Partisan's picture

Now Mr. Obama and his campaign advisors are floating the idea of keeping Sec'y of Defense GATES on as Sec'y in the "anti-war," Democratic Obama Administration?

Admittedly Mr. Gates's no Rumsfeld.

But gee, this makes Obama's idea of nominating Sen. Lugar for Sec'y of State (R., Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of 8 congressional members briefed by Bush during this war, and famed Obama mentor) look merely conservative.

Our new war policies: same as our old war policies?

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

From a tactical standpoint, the "surge" (which IIRC, he supported) may have been successful. It's hard for me to know, as it coincided with a crackdown on bad-news reporting, including outrageously narrowing the definitions of what qualified as an Iraqi casualty.

This one item concerns me though, his willingness to catapult the Bomb, Bomb Iran propaganda:

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

rationale for the surge--show me the political progress and the functioning non-puppet government.

It was never about violence or lowering it-- it was solely about taking over the streets so that their govt would get their acts together-- it failed.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

But it may have led to tactical advantages, depending on whether the data about casualties are to be believed.

On the bigger picture, by further tapping our resources, it may be an enormous strategic failure.

And that's just looking at it from the DoD perspective. From the national perspective, everything about this fucking war is a fiasco.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

further undercuts a functional government. Whole cities, town, and whole neighborhoods have been "ethnically cleansed" and aren't integrated anymore, so of course there's less violence. And we're manning roadblocks and walls which further segregate people there.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

...that Democrats are weak on national security? That there are no legitimate Dems worthy of being Sec of Defense?
Why would the left blogosphere nominate a guy who doesn't endorse members of his own party and who kneecaps the party this way? Shouldn't Obama be talking about which Dem he will nominate, not which Repubs he will nominate? He's making the party weaker every time he empowers and favors Repubs over Dems.
Glad I'm an Indy and do not really care, but I will point out the obvious.

Submitted by lambert on

... until the Supreme Court slot opens up?

[rimshot, laughter]

Just shoot me now, OK?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Robert Gates is a made man in the Bush family. He's aligned with corporatist George H. W. these days though he had a fling with the far right-wing zanies who eventually won over George W..

After he left D.C. in the early 90s, Gates served as President of Texas A&M, the repository of the Bush 41 presidential papers. He returned to D.C. as an original member of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group. These days Gates is out to downsize the neo-cons -- but not the Pentagon.

In the end, the neo-con approach proved bad for business. In days of yore though, as the text at your link points out, Gates spent a season at the CIA closely aligned with Director William Casey and other crack pots - whatever it takes:

In his memoirs, From the Shadows, Gates denied politicizing the CIA’s intelligence product, though acknowledging that he was aware of Casey’s hostile reaction to the analysts’ disagreement with right-wing theories about Soviet-directed terrorism.

Soon, the hammer fell on the analysts who had prepared the Soviet-terrorism report. Ekedahl said many analysts were “replaced by people new to the subject who insisted on language emphasizing Soviet control of international terrorist activities.”

A donnybrook ensued inside the U.S. intelligence community. Some senior officials responsible for analysis pushed back against Casey’s dictates, warning that acts of politicization would undermine the integrity of the process and risk policy disasters in the future.

Casey appointed Gates to be director of the Directorate of Intelligence [DI] and consolidated Gates’s control over analysis by also making him chairman of the National Intelligence Council, another key analytical body.

“Casey and Gates used various management tactics to get the line of intelligence they desired and to suppress unwanted intelligence,” Ekedahl said.

This clip, from the 2:50 mark to the 9;00 minute mark, recalls those golden days.

makana44's picture
Submitted by makana44 on

...who could as easily have been a Republican as a Democrat. Altruism is a laughable concept when applied to him. Hillary is a life-long Democrat, committed and dedicated to the party’s ideals (which will no longer exist if Obama wins). We fell for her not just because she emerged as the uber competent policy wonk, but because somewhere along the road it became apparent that she really cared. How many times did she tell us that she’s in it for us, that she wants to help make our lives better. How many times did Obama tell us he cares? The “I” came out of his mouth countless times, but the “care” part, not so many.

His objective - and that of his shadow supporters (the SS), his suppliers of cash, muscle, and tactical verbiage - is not ‘change’ but simply to gain power. Power which translates into control of the U.S. Treasury. His purpose is identical to Bush and Cheney’s. To the controlling contingent of bankers, oil men, and military industrialists - Bush will go down in history as The Greatest U.S. President of all time. He leaves office with two intractable wars in place and having overseen the rise of the price of oil from under $25 / barrel to $140 / barrel and careening its way up to $170 by mid-summer. He is in a pantheon all his own. Obama’s objectives will be to continue the same, as he is backed by the same. Change? They are laughing at us all the way to the bank.

Can anybody now say – and I mean anybody – that Obama will not do and say whatever it takes to win? Can anyone deny that there are no scruples, no principles, no heart, no purpose there save to win the presidency and thereby control the treasury.

Bill Clinton, the finest U.S. President since FDR, famously said, “I feel your pain.” That’s a whole lot like Hillary’s caring about the vast American middle class and underclass. It’s no accident that every strata of American populace did quite well during Clinton’s eight years. It’s no accident that the U.S. treasury was not plundered during Clinton’s administration; on the contrary, the national debt was paid down and surpluses abounded. When Bush entered office (through an obscene and truly illicit grab of power by the SS), it took but a bat of an eye for the surpluses to turn into yawning deficits and for the rich to become richer than ever before with their tax burdens stripped away; while the rest of us barely maintained. It’s no accident that stopping the Clintons was the highest goal, with the corporate media, the DNC, and the Democratic leadership fully complicit (along with the witless, unwitting dupes of the progressive blogosphere).

Obama could care less about blacks or whites, women or men of any stripe. He is the charismatic empty suit who gives great speech. Their perfect Manchurian candidate, brainwashed in the halls of Trinity Church, the Daley Machine, Jack Welsh’s nuclear power billionaire club, and Wall Street. He is a Bush deluxe in Democrat’s clothing. If he wins we are double fucked (having nowhere to turn this time). The Clintons will be locked out for at least eight years; the party will be transfigured into Republican light. The Democratic party are lemmings to the trough of money. The party of FDR and Clinton will be no more. DINO will become established fact, a third party the only option.

Lambert don’t be guilt tripped into voting for him. He doesn’t represent or support or care about anything you believe in. He represents only himself and the SS.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I guess it's fair to say that we're avoiding the battles by giving up on the war, if by giving up on the war I mean keeping a quarter-million Americans there in a futile endeavor -- which I do.