Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Give Kerry a Break




My Age of Anxiety


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Bush’s Follies Will Destroy Obama If He Lets Them

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 25, 2008
USAF / Staff Sgt. Samuel Rogers

By William Pfaff

One might think that if Barack Obama believes he can make a success of his new administration by largely reconstituting the Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton included, he should know better than to take on the reckless ambitions and commitments of the George W. Bush administration as well: the government that gave America the Mideast and Asian crises, blunders and humiliations of the past 6 1/2 years.

The world has witnessed a futile, destructive and illegal American invasion of Iraq, a war conducted on false pretenses, supposedly against terrorists, accompanied by worldwide actions that have made American policy in Bush’s “global war on terror” seem to many Muslims an attack on Islamic society itself.

Obama is now taking on the quasi-impossible tasks of bringing to a successful and responsible conclusion the Bush government’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as what shows signs of becoming another military intervention of grave and unforeseeable consequences in Pakistan. He is doing so without challenging the assumptions and goals of Bush administration policy.

It has been the mindset of the Bush administration—and, unfortunately, of much of the neoconservative-influenced foreign policy establishment in Washington—that international society’s problems are reducible to wars that American armies will win. They are wrong on both counts. But some still argue that this is the way to a better and more democratic world.

Obama has no choice but to accept responsibility for these American crises. But why should he accept them on the distorted and even hysterical terms by which the Bush administration has defined world affairs since 2001?

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Iraq has been a victim of the United States. Washington had no legal or moral justification for invading the country and destroying its infrastructure, killing an uncounted number of Iraqis and displacing half a million or more to ruined lives while setting off the sectarian conflicts that have wracked the country since 2003.

There is a heavy American responsibility to do no more harm, however well-intentioned. The present volatile situation in the country is for the moment a largely political shoving match between the divided and possibly ephemeral Shiite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his rivals, who include the Shiite radicals of Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Sunni, and largely ex-Baathist, Awakening Movement, sponsored by the U.S. Army to defend Sunni tribal regions against the foreigners of the fundamentalist al-Qaida. In addition, are the two Kurdish movements that together control, and plan to make independent and permanent, a Kurdistan nation incorporating—if they have their way—the oil-rich Kirkuk region.

One can make the political—and moral—argument that as the American invasion is responsible for the Iraqi upheaval, Washington should somehow settle it. The answer is that it’s impossible for Americans to do so. The U.S. cannot do it by continued military occupation and intervention in the country’s affairs.

Only the Iraqis themselves can settle this, and doing so may entail even more religious and ethnic struggle. The neighboring Shiite great power, Iran, will play its cards in the country. The Saudis will play theirs. Israel will do everything in its power to prevent an American withdrawal. All of this will probably add still more tragedies to those of the last six years, but at least the U.S. responsibility will have become only indirect, which is bad enough.

Barack Obama started off his presidential campaign by saying that he would get American troops out of Iraq by mid-2010. That was a strong, simple position that, if resolutely carried out, would make it clear to the Iraqis what they have to do to save themselves, and how long they have in which to do it.

Since the early campaign, the president-elect has been forced to qualify his position, weaken it, blur it, say that actually many U.S. troops probably will stay on, the dates may change, American involvement will continue, and so on. He has been forced back toward the Washington consensus opinion, the centrist and “responsible” position, close to the Bush opinion.

Nearly everyone is against his sticking to his original policy: The Iraq factions all plan to exploit American ambiguities to strengthen their own positions and maneuver the American command to favor them. The Kurds want time to make their proto-Kurdistan even more impregnable (while encouraging their reluctance to deal with Turkish and Iranian hostility to a sovereign Kurdistan, as well as deal realistically with their fellow Iraqis).

In Washington, the Pentagon is against withdrawal on Obama’s terms. It still wants permanent bases in Iraq. It claims Obama’s timetable is logistically impossible. The Republicans will shout “treason” and “betrayal.” American oil companies and the corporations that are already part of the occupation, as well as those that have big ambitions for moving into an American-secured Iraq, will demand that the U.S. stay.

All this must be resisted if Obama is to be his own man. He has to rid himself of George Bush’s folly. He must make Iraq truly independent. If he doesn’t, it could destroy his administration.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By KDelphi, November 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

ITW—Nope, I’m not a constitutional scholar—but I dont need one to tell me what is right. Neither do you. Youre just bringing up the legal arguemtns because you know the dems dont have the balls to do anything.

We have let things go so many times, it wont be noticed, at first. But, people will remember. And justice will again bwe forgone in the name of politics.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2008 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, November 28 at 2:43 pm #

Folk—You are correct, and, I suppose we shouold concern ourselvse with the larger picture, but, barring that…

IRW—I dunno, cause its the right thing to do? Because we have never had an adminstration commit so many obvious crimes that killed so many in recent history? So the world wil respect us? Stop laughing! I know that doesnt mean sh*t in the IS anymore.

But that doesnt mean that people will forget…and we shouldnt
********************************************

Why not? Because it’s like p***ing up a rope—all you get is a wet, smelly hand.

Is the object to remove Bush from doing further harm? He’s got only 50 odd days left.  Nobody in the Senate will go for that.

Or is the object to punish him for his crimes?  There is NO reason that can’t happen after he leaves office.  In fact, it’s preferable—charge him and his pals AFTER he can no longer pardon them.

Impeaching Bush now is NOT the right thing to do.  It WAS the right thing to do when we learned he lied about Iraq.  But with the GOP in charge of both houses, it wasn’t going to happen.

Impeachment is political.  It can’t be allowed to happen again unless you have 67 votes in your pocket for conviction.  Even then it shouldn’t happen because the President will resign first.

You really need to study the Constitution and how it’s been applied.  You won’t waste your time on useless and pointless gestures.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Folk—You are correct, and, I suppose we shouold concern ourselvse with the larger picture, but, barring that…

IRW—I dunno, cause its the right thing to do? Because we have never had an adminstration commit so many obvious crimes that killed so many in recent history? So the world wil respect us? Stop laughing! I know that doesnt mean sh*t in the IS anymore.

But that doesnt mean that people will forget…and we shouldnt

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2008 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

“With the 67, impeachment is a lot of noise and a waste of time.”

Should read “WithOUT the 67, impeachment is a lot of noise and a waste of time.”

Sorry.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2008 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

Pat Williams, November 27 at 3:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

During the latter part of their first term in office, Ramsey Clark laid out a list of valid impeachable offences committed by George W. Bush and Richard Cheney including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Over a million Americans signed a petition to impeach them. In the ensuing years, efforts were made to bring charges by one or another of our state legislatures. This president and vice president and their minions have committed heinous crimes. Most of the violence has been against non-citizens, usually on foreign soil, it has taken a toll, of millions of men, women and children. The acts against we Americans has been fiendish as well. Our laws and regulations have been targeted with the results being to steal our natural resources, the health and lives of millions far into the future and ultimately the deterioration and destruction of our infrastructure. We could have stopped this. So much has been lost. Nevermore. This must end on January 20, 2009. These same people, Bush, Cheney and the minions, some already being embedded in the civil service system, must be stopped or they WILL recycle, as before, back into power and finish the job.

****************************************************

I hate to tell you this but a million signatures on a petition STILL don’t mean crap—that’s less than 1% of the people who voted a few weeks ago, and less than 1% of those who voted in 2004 as well.

As long as the GOP controlled the House and Senate there was a 0% chance of either a bill of impeachment being brought or a conviction reached.

In fact, when it comes to impeachment, the ONLY voices that matter are the 67 senators for vote for conviction.  With the 67, impeachment is a lot of noise and a waste of time.  There have been two impeachments of Presidents.  In both cases a Republican Congress was trying to get rid of a President it couldn’t control using BS violations as the excuse.  There would have been a 3rd, and it was based on substantive charges and evidence, and there WERE 67 votes to convict, but Richard Nixon resigned rather than face that conviction.

I don’t understand why the pro-impeachment folks just don’t get this: You need 67 Senators to vote for conviction.  Period.  At no point between his inauguration and Obama’s has it EVER been possible to get close to 67 senators voting for conviction and removal.  Never.

(OF COURSE I would have liked to see both Bush and Cheney removed from office by impeachment or resignation—but I know how to count)

Report this

By Pat Williams, November 27, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

During the latter part of their first term in office, Ramsey Clark laid out a list of valid impeachable offences committed by George W. Bush and Richard Cheney including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Over a million Americans signed a petition to impeach them. In the ensuing years, efforts were made to bring charges by one or another of our state legislatures. This president and vice president and their minions have committed heinous crimes. Most of the violence has been against non-citizens, usually on foreign soil, it has taken a toll, of millions of men, women and children. The acts against we Americans has been fiendish as well. Our laws and regulations have been targeted with the results being to steal our natural resources, the health and lives of millions far into the future and ultimately the deterioration and destruction of our infrastructure. We could have stopped this. So much has been lost. Nevermore. This must end on January 20, 2009. These same people, Bush, Cheney and the minions, some already being embedded in the civil service system, must be stopped or they WILL recycle, as before, back into power and finish the job.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

The reason why indicting Bush/Cheney cannot occur is because the American legal system is as broken as the electoral and truth systems.  They don’t work against the powerful.  The American prisons are overflowing but with the American powerless. 

American justice has as much relevance to true justice as American power truth has to reality-based truth.

Report this

By Stan Krasnoff, November 26, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was the right strategy? If so, then US/Coalition forces need to remain. If the answer, however, is ‘no’ then an exit plan must be implemented. One such a plan would be a deployment of 200,000 troops (10 divisions) for a period of ninety days during which time all borders to Iraq would be sealed, the nation would be put on a dusk to dawn curfew and a major search and destroy operation be mounted to weed out the jihadists who oppose the government of Iraq. It’s problematic whether Iraq would accept such action, which of course is a measure of the weakened state that the Bush administration has led America to. A summit involving Iraq, Iran, Syria and the US should be held during this ninety-day period at which the US should state its position: Interference by any state in the governance of Iraq would be considered a hostile act against America. After ninety days, all US/Coalition troops should be pulled out. But this will never happen. Why? Because this war was never about WMD or ‘real and present danger’, it was always about OIL and the oil corporations need troops to protect installations and pipe lines. The new agreement between the US and Iraq which replaces the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) ultimately removes all US forces from Iraq by 2011. Don’t hold your breath because Iraqi Defense Minister Obaidi leaves the door open for more US troop deployment post-2011. And further, what is not clearly revealed is that the US will control profits from Iraqi oil exports. Back to the fundamental question will Obama support the oil wars or not?  If he does then his administration is doomed. I wrote a book http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/AClaytonsDefense.html which in part deals with oil wars.

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, November 26, 2008 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

If that doesn’t beat all….“There is a heavy American responsibility to do no more harm, however well-intentioned”??!!. This sounds suspiciously like Obamaspeak. If you’re knowingly and willfully causing harm, then what possible definition can be given to “well-intentioned” in such a context?? More likely this is a kind of careless compression that juxtaposes two contradictary notions and, if only unwittingly, is all the more revealing for having done so. If indeed, it means that the aim of the “war” i.e. illegal invasion was “well intentioned” and that “harm” (however great) was simply a by-product of lofty intentions gone awry, then it’s the standard rationale liberal Democrats typically use to cop a plea for the crimes of American empire. It goes back to the Vietnam “tragic error” exoneration. To fall back on that flimsy alibi again, simply won’t wash.“One might think that if Barack Obama believes he can make a success of his new administration by largely reconstituting the Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton included, he should know” ...that he will, in the baleful bargain… “take on the reckless ambitions and commitments of the George W. Bush administration as well”. Hillary, Biden, Emanuel, Ross, Lake, etc. all supported the “futile, destructive and illegal American invasion of Iraq”, in the first place - as did most other Democrats when it came time to vote on the use of force in congress in 2003. They took on those “reckless ambitions and commitments” right from the start. “Obama has no choice but to accept responsibility for these American crises”... since he and his VP and his Sec. of State have consistently voted to fund these “futile, destructive and illegal American”... military campaigns while in the Senate. Despite their deceitful campaign rhetoric, they made that choice long ago, and bear co-responsibility for the “destructive and illegal” calamity in the Middle East (not just Iraq!) by ‘reaching across the aisle’ to their fellow imperialist Republican bedfellows (and ladies). “Iraq has been a victim of the United States”, long before 2003, of course. “Washington had no legal or moral justification for”... imposing catastrophic sanctions on the country during the Clinton years ... “destroying its infrastructure, killing an uncounted number of Iraqis and”... malnourishing and depriving ...“millions more to ruined lives”. Some in the Bush regime during the run-up to the latest invasion even tried to ...“make the political—and moral—argument that as the American invasion is responsible for the Iraqi upheaval”...so too, the Clinton sanctions were so onerous that a full-scale invasion would actually be a humanitarian relief if it finally brought the genocidal sanctions to an end. Another macabre variation on the ‘lesser of two evils’ illogical that has so perverted the American political system in many different contexts over the years - including most recently, in the election of Obama Copacabana because he’s not Bush. “Only the Iraqis themselves can settle this, and doing so may entail even more religious and ethnic struggle” - but at least they can settle it for themselves even if requires more costly struggle, whereas with the Clinton sanctions they were helpless to struggle free. “All of this will probably add still more tragedies to those of the last” sixTEEN years, but at least”... the U.S. sanctions won’t be silently destroying Iraq, although the U.S.‘s direct responsibility there will never be annulled. It’s “clear to the Iraqis what they have to do to save themselves” : liberate the country from the bipartisan barbarity of Bush neo-con’s AND Clinton liberals - “reconstituted” or otherwise. “All this must be resisted if”... Iraqis are to be their own men. They must rid themselves of reconstituted Clinton criminality as well as Bush’s felonious folly. If they don’t, Obama’s administration could continue to destroy them.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, November 26 at 9:33 am #

ITW—If the new executive branch is as certain as most of the population is, that Bush lied, then he knows Bush committeed war crimes (and everyone knows who else) then why not show the world that we realize this and, wil not allow it, by indicting him for war crimes? To not do that, when you know it is the right thin g to do, is to dismiss justice as not necessary, for political reasons.
**********************************************

KDelphi:  For once I agree whole-heartedly!  I have been saying for months that he should be indicted as soon as sufficient evidence to bring a conviction can be gathered following Jan 20, 2009.

I have NOT been a fan of impeachment for practical reasons, but I AM fully in support of indicting Bush, Cheney, and whomsoever he doesn’t blanket-pardon who committed these terrible acts supposedly in our names.

Here’s why I am against impeachment. No realistic Scenarios:
1) Bush cannot be impeached by the lame-duck Congress—not enough Senate votes for a conviction, therefore it will do more harm than good to have the trial.
2) The NEW Senate in January will only have 2 weeks of Bush—they won’t oust him because he’ll be gone even before the trial can start.
3) Assuming he CAN be ousted, that leaves….President Cheney!
4) So…Assuming we can impeach and oust Cheney first, then impeach and oust Bush.  That leaves Pelosi.  Pelosi will have to give up her Speakership AND Congressional seat—to be President for between 2 weeks and 7 weeks.  She’s not going to want to do that (give up what she worked so hard to attain) and, as Speaker of the House she will therefore BLOCK any attempt to bring an impeachment indictment.

So, why bother considering impeachment?  But post-presidency criminal charges against Bush&co;?  I say “Bring ‘em on!” (catchy little phrase, that!)

Report this

By KDelphi, November 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

bush is in the process of revoking a bunch of environmental laws. the dems shouldve impeached him.

Report this

By hippy pam, November 26, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

“ole bullshit” wants to be remembered….as a leader….a great man….HE WILL “HAMSTRING” Obama by leaving a bunch of crap that Obama will have to clear up first in order to make progress…We have a new president…The OLD ONE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SET ANY POLICIES….We need to make a LAW…

Report this

By sophrosyne, November 26, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone really surprised at Obama?  He was on the same payroll as Hillary and the stooge McPain.  AIPAC made him sound more of a hawk than Hillary before they would give him a pass.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 26, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

ITW—If the new executive branch is as certain as most of the population is, that Bush lied, then he knows Bush committeed war crimes (and everyone knows who else) then why not show the world that we realize this and, wil not allow it, by indicting him for war crimes? To not do that, when you know it is the right thin g to do, is to dismiss justice as not necessary, for political reasons.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 26, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

No, Bushite policies will not destoy Obama.  He is very intelligently and in a talented way promoting them, as Obama serves the third term of Bush. He will straddle the Elite consensus of the Dem-Gop leaders while separating himself from progressive policies and persons. 

His aim is to unite the Dem-Gops to support more intelligently managed Bushite policies, the Elite consensus center, which is to the right of the population political consensus.  Given the corrupt and obsolete electoral system, this should win him the next presidential election, perhaps overwhelmingly.  This was the Tony Blair strategy in Britain which Obama is following, just as Reagan followed the Thatcher strategy.

It is perfectly reasonable from a personal power perspective of Obama.  However it implies continued submerging of the American population under the polices of war, racism, neoliberalism, and a police state.  The anti-DemGop progressives must unite in a cohesive force somehow to oppose these DemGop policies.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Assumption: Obama accepts that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are behind the 9/11 attacks. Therefore assess his actions or intended actions based on that.  I agree with that assumption—I’ve heard lots of wild, supposedly-documented conspiracy theories that were IMMEDIATELY circulated on the ultra-fanatic-Arab web sites (naturally blaming Israel) but I haven’t seen anything concrete.  Just lots of wild tales why jet fuel in an enclosed space can’t burn the temper out of steel.  Anyway…that’s my assumption.

On that, it’s natural to recognize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we broke it so we “own” it—Pottery Barn Rule.  Yeah Saddam was an evil SOB but he was contained, and, my second assumption is that Obama thinks everything Bush&co;told us about Iraq was a lie…Again, I agree with that assessment. Now the problem is how to get OUT of Iraq with the minimum damage going forward to both Iraq and the United States, but getting out HAS to happen.  The BEST way is in concert with the Iraqis, especially the government.  An apology to the people of Iraq would be in order as well. “Now that we’ve gotten rid of the idiot we’ll try to clean up the mess he made in our name as much as we can…”

So…getting out of Iraq is a must.

But with the first assumption, it means that OBL and the Taliban may still represent a threat in Afghanistan.  As usual, the Bushies have made a complete mess of both relations with the Karzai government in Kabul and the Pakistani government AT THE SAME TIME!  History: Had the Afghan war been conducted properly and brought to a successful conclusion (which was definitely do-able in 2002/2003), the Taliban would have been crushed (as they deserve) OBL would be neutralized, one way or another and we’d be out of there except maybe as a token or training force—and the Afghan people would probably be grateful.

But that didn’t happen.  Now, it’s much, much worse.  Obama hasn’t committed to ANYTHING in Afghanistan but has said it cannot be solved without more troops.  That doesn’t mean it CAN be solved with more troops, just that it can’t be as-is. Meanwhile, while the GOP were talking “Surge” in Afghanistan, Petraeus was saying “no, that’s not appropriate” and Obama went with that.

But for ANYTHING to work, Obama must repair relations with Pakistan and Kabul.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 26, 2008 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

cyrena-I shouldve said that if YOU guys didnt want Obama to be criticized (and if he is not losing any sleep over it—-wtf cares??), it would have been “fortunate” if he had waited…

You know cyrena, there are plenty of comments more cricical than mine…on all the threads—why do you focus on me?

Well, dont—cause I am not going to read yours anymore. I have a right to feel and speak as I do. YOu do also. I also have a right to realize that, saying anything that isnt complimentary about Obama , ot any of his choices, will just cause you to pick apart anythig I say. If it is fun for you—have at it.

Why not take on someone else for a change? You will have to, or “talk to the hand”.

Report this

By Hulk2008, November 26, 2008 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you ask a surgeon how to cure a problem, he undoubtedly will provide a surgical procedure for it.  Asking the Pentagon how to solve a problem will ONLY result in some military options.  The advisors all have vested interests in whatever solutions might be available. 
    JFK blockaded Cuba rather than invade.  If there were any realistic way to isolate Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran that might be THE answer.  But the brutal truth is that there is NO solution as long as a percentage of Americans insist there is some way to “win” in those places.  Greed begets small wars beget world wars beget world wars beget arms races beget suppression of the masses .... ad infinitum.  Just as in the movie “WarGames”, an impartial machine would realize this ridiculous game of brinkmanship Tic-Tac-Toe has no “winning” resolution.

Report this

By elianita55, November 26, 2008 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

One of the problems with major party presidential candidates is the need for them to compromise (or to appear to be compromising) to appeal to the centrist segments of the two parties and of the American population.

A good example of this is Barack Obama’s willingness to distance himself from his original anti-war rhetoric. That stance allowed him to cleanly differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton in the primaries, but it became much less useful to him during the general election, when he was obliged to adopt a more hawkish stance so as not to appear soft on national security. This gave birth to the current rhetoric on Afghanistan.

This type of politicking occurs so often that is becomes hard to diffrentiate the Democrats from the Republicans. Right now, there is a whole host of subjects on which they agree, and these include expanding the war in Afghanistan and not proceeding with an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Things aren’t looking too good.

Report this

By prosefights, November 26, 2008 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

A short and deadly history of how we got to where we are.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/shorthistory/shorthistory.htm#shorthistory

Report this

By Can O' Whoopass, November 26, 2008 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nobody even mentions Dick Bush’s role in America’s destruction, anymore.

It’s as if he never existed.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, November 26, 2008 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

I fear Mr. Obama is falling prey to one of G.W. Bush’s worst fantasies—that the USA can do ANYTHING. And that includes fight two wars and make plans for more, while trying to put back together a Humpty-Dumpty economy (it had a great fall).

If the argument is “guns or butter?”, I gladly choose the butter.

Report this

By Da Bronx, November 26, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena:

Obviously we trust his judgment far more than we do the gangsters that have ruined us, or others that write on blogs, especially those who clearly don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. So, there you have it.

Spirit Girl:

The President-elect has yet to assume the office, and yet the media has already started to expect and appear just a bit snippy on the details of “future plans”, demands that they never demanded of the little incompetent imperial one!  The nerve!  Even now, BushCo. is still in the White House, and yet no one has any real questions for the man, what’s the problem - realize it is too taxing for his brain?!  Can we at least let the man take the oath of office, before we start to blast him, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania, he reads, thinks, and has a clue!!!

And most of all the American people that voted for the idiot are to blame!  What, exactly what recommended this man as someone that had a clue to vote for!?!  Even as jobs were hemmorhaging overseas, and the divide between the haves and have nots was growing - throughout all of this the corporate oligarchy was pulling the strings of which issues would/would not be published!  The nerve!!!!

To Cyrena,

Obviously if we don’t believe and think exactly as you, we “don’t know what we’re talking about”

I don’t know that you (or anyone else) can determine that the ajority of people voted for Obama because they “trust his judgement” maybe they voted for him because he’s not GWB, or because he said “change” more than the other guy, clearly some folks voted for him because he looked more like them than did John McCain.

I personally question the judgement of anyone who would want to be president…. particularly now.

Spirit girl:

Same criticism; You assume because people don’t view the world through your eyes, they must “get a clue” (I never really understood that phrase, and maybe you should look up “clue”.)

Obama is the president elect, and it is during the time between election and inauguration which the press traditionally “roasts” the candidate. They did it to Clinton, GHWB, and John Adams.

Onbama has made some mis-steps, and he will pay for them, The appointment (or retaining) of Gates at Defense extends a tradition of Republicans running DOD during Democratic administrations. (Clinton appointed Bill Cohen.)This gives the public the idea that the Republicans are the only party able to assure the National Defense. It also says that Obama and his administration are OK with the way DOD has preformed…this includes their position on our current wars. In my view short-sighted and incorrect positions.

Report this

By RdV, November 26, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Oh hell, Obama is doing just fine destroying himself.

By whining about Bush but never holding him accountable, what do Obama or the Democrats care if they can pull the same crap and get away with it? If they serve the same masters—why would we expect anything but the most minor shifts in approach? Obama talks the talk just like Republicans effectively speak to their base—but that is where the diffences end. Obama should watch that arrogance of power peeping through—when it all falls, it will be him who shoulders the blame and his base of support by then will be long gone. Clinton #3 is right.

Report this

By Citizen Sam, November 26, 2008 at 1:19 am Link to this comment

My #1 problem with voting for Obama (as if there was a choice) was his insistence on intensifying the “war on terrorism” in Afganistan. There are SO many issues he is inheriting from W, I can’t fathom why he will perpetuate this fiasco. As if Bin Laden is still hiding in a cave! Sounds like he has his man to do the job though; Gates. Come on! Where’s the change?

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2008 at 1:06 am Link to this comment

By KDelphi, November 25 at 10:02 pm #

If Obama didnt want to be criticized for his appointments, maybe he should have waited to make his appointments—or appionted people who were not all DLC and GOP.

Odd, Kdelphi,  I haven’t read or otherwise heard Obama complaining about being criticized for his appointments.  Something makes me think, (though I certainly could be wrong) that he isn’t losing any sleep on that particular issue. (being criticized for his appointments.) In fact, I’m CONVINCED that he’s got other more urgent things to consider.

I’m also convinced that he didn’t make his appointments based on the political party of the person appointed or selected to present to the Senate for Confirmation.  That too, would have been incredibly stupid on his part, and again, we already know he isn’t that. Just like he probably doesn’t care about being criticized for his selections on whom to give what job to.

And, after 8 years of the absolute WORST batch EVER..(and of course much longer than that for a Repug Congress) that’s pretty much why we voted for him. Obviously we trust his judgment far more than we do the gangsters that have ruined us, or others that write on blogs, especially those who clearly don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. So, there you have it.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 25, 2008 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

distracto—yes..maybe now we can see how much supporters will “hold him accountable”, like they said they would.

Report this

By distracto, November 25, 2008 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What originally attracted people to Obama was his opposition to invading Iraq. We now must remind him and ourselves of that premise and its obligations. We must oppose the occupation of Iraq and the fake ‘war on terrorism’. We cannot forget our original purpose and moral obligation, even during this financial crisis.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 25, 2008 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

If Obama didnt want to be criticized for his appointments, maybe he should have waited to make his appointments—or appionted people who were not all DLC and GOP.

Report this

By trisha, November 25, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama made certain commitments with regard to Iraq. He needs to keep them. Pfaff is not prejudging him, merely suggesting he may have more of a fight over withdrawal than he will be able to sustain. On Afghanistan, Obama has stated he WILL enhance the U.S. military position - Gates in on board with this. With further planned incursions into yet another sovereign nation - Pakistan - which Obama has also promised (as well as all things being on the table with regards to Iran), it is clear that the President-elect is showing signs of contracting the same viral insanity Bush did. The media are not the only group that need to face reality, it seems.

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

SpiritGirl…

You speak my language so clearly.

“...Even now, BushCo. is still in the White House, and yet no one has any real questions for the man, what’s the problem - realize it is too taxing for his brain?!  Can we at least let the man take the oath of office, before we start to blast him, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania, he reads, thinks, and has a clue!!!...”

Great post. This is part is SOOOOO true!!! I’ve been noticing this very same thing for the past few years now; most certainly throughout the long ass campaign.

In short, Obama isn’t even on the clock, and Dick Bush has been f*&$ing up for nearly 8 years, bringing us to the brink of destruction, and nobody even mentions him.

Report this

By yours truly, November 25, 2008 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Troops Out Now

“Otherwise?”

“Extinction.”

“Based on?”

“Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday.”

Report this

By Spiritgirl, November 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

While the incompetent imperial Bush and his neo-con war mongers was invading the sovereign nation of Afghanistan in pursuit of those “terrorists” that perpetrated the attacks on this nation, where was the media?  While the incompetent imperial one was “crying wolf” about Iraq, where was the media doing the real fact-checking, as they are wont to do?  While the incompetent one totally mismanaged these wars, had no plans to exit, and doesn’t listen to the advise of others, where oh where was the media?!

The President-elect has yet to assume the office, and yet the media has already started to expect and appear just a bit snippy on the details of “future plans”, demands that they never demanded of the little incompetent imperial one!  The nerve!  Even now, BushCo. is still in the White House, and yet no one has any real questions for the man, what’s the problem - realize it is too taxing for his brain?!  Can we at least let the man take the oath of office, before we start to blast him, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania, he reads, thinks, and has a clue!!!

And most of all the American people that voted for the idiot are to blame!  What, exactly what recommended this man as someone that had a clue to vote for!?!  Even as jobs were hemmorhaging overseas, and the divide between the haves and have nots was growing - throughout all of this the corporate oligarchy was pulling the strings of which issues would/would not be published!  The nerve!!!!

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook