Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAccording to insiders, Barack Obama's campaign is debating how long it can leave ambiguous the notion of "residual forces" in Iraq after a presumed Obama-ordered withdrawal of combat troops begins in January 2009. But there are worrying signs, perhaps the ugliest being the rumor that Obama might recruit Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to his campaign. (Yes, that's President Bush's secretary of defense.) The Times of London reports this stunner, even quoting Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser and a former secretary of the Navy in the Clinton Administration, saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defence and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
Adds the paper:
Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.
Meanwhile, conservatives and cautious centrists in the Democratic party want to soft-pedal Obama's commitment to end the war in Iraq.
Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar who supported President Bush's so-called surge in January, 2007, is one of those. He told the Moonie-owned Washington Times this week:
"Three or four of his Iraq advisers are hinting of greater flexibility, though speaking for themselves, not for him. That indicates the potential for some change in his previous position or at least some flexibility."
O'Hanlon's role as a Hillary Clinton adviser crashed and burned last year after he emerged as a strong advocate for continuing the war in Iraq, and he's not an Obama adviser.
The Post reports rather ominously today:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
But the Post quotes Obama's key foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough saying that Obama is not changing anything. Still, according to insiders, the word "responsible" has been affixed with superglue to Obama's Iraq position by the campaign's more centrist advisers, who are trying to pull the candidate to the right.
The same Post article goes on to note that the Obama-Clinton merger is likely to add somewhat more hawkish advisers to the Obama camp:
There is another factor that could potentially come into play as Obama deepens his Iraq policy: his newfound alliance with Clinton and his move to incorporate her foreign policy advisers into his team. In trying to unite the party, Obama has described his differences with Clinton as negligible."If you look at my positions and Senator Clinton's, there's not a lot of difference, which is why it's so easy for advisers, senior advisers of Senator Clinton, to support my candidacy," Obama said at a meeting of his new working group on national security earlier this month.
Not a lot of difference, perhaps--but enough to make progressives worry. Hopefully, the addition of Madeleine Albright, William Perry, et al. to Obama's "team" is just window dressing, and he will keep those discredited hawks at arm's length. But it's important to note that Robert Gates recently appointed William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, to the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.
Obama has announced plans to visit Israel, Jordan and (on a separate trip, or perhaps a still-unannounced part of that trip) Iraq and Afghanistan. What he says on that trip (especially in Iraq) and who he takes with him will be crucial. Hopefully, he won't take Gates with him. Gates, you'll remember, was an early participant in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that came up with a plan for Iraq that seems very much like Obama's, and one of Obama's top campaign staffers helped write the ISG report.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
And here, the final indignity in prospect. Is anyone surprized? While it would be as yet unfair to point to a sell-out, I fully expect one. When will people wake up and see that major party label and the public statements of their candidates are just so much oafal. The people consistently vote for one thing and get its opposite, you will hear the same complaint on both ends of the political spectrum. Progressives need vote for Nadar to insure the authenticity of their franchise.
Posted by john lowell at 06/29/2008 @ 11:06am
McBama '08 -- IN HOPE WE TRUST
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/29/2008 @ 11:16am
johnlowell-are you a real Nader person or a McCain supporter?Can't tell the difference between the two on blogs.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 11:23am
You can't leave a situation you are not in...
Obama listens to the Clintonian 'reserve' because it makes sense. The last even remotely credible foreign policy is full of experience and connections... and if we are to chart a new direction for America... their 'two cents' is worth plenty.
Gates is on top of the situation in Iraq right now, and his guidance and insight are invaluable.
lowell... the 'with us or against us' attitude you exude is a dead giveaway as to where your allegiances are...
Posted by ttr at 06/29/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/29/2008 @ 10:54am
Fine, JOHN....let's just PAY for it, huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2008 @ 11:45am
What does the Nation Magazine expect out of these criticisms of Obama? Are they supposed to put pressure on him or something? He doesn't pay any attention to liberal Democrats since they will never break with him. There is something rather pathetic about this exercise. A professor emeritus summed it up on Doug Henwood's listserv:
"He [Obama] will NEVER sell out. No DP president has EVER sold out. The myth of a sell-out utterly mistakes the principled allegiance of the DP & its leadership and candidates to the interests of U.S. capital and U.S. imperialism. Talk of sell-out is a perfect illustration of my image yesterday of the DP as an abusive husband whose wife keeps thinking that isn't really him, that he really loves her but is not true to himself."
Posted by lnp3 at 06/29/2008 @ 12:34pm
"Hopefully, the addition of Madeleine Albright, William Perry, et al. to Obama's "team" is just window dressing, and he will keep those discredited hawks at arm's length."
This scenario reminds me of the very first Borg episode on STNG. (The Best of Both Worlds - 1990)
"I am Locutus (Clinton) of Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us."
Posted by ACook at 06/29/2008 @ 12:48pm
Inp3 probably nailed it. Silly me, I projected my wanna' be liberal image on Obama... I suspect many other liberals did the same. Yet Obama has long told everyone who would listen that he's about consensus and not about confrontation. After some heart burn regarding Obama's flip flop on the FISA bill, I've decided I can live with the real Obama.
Yet, it seems Obama is not just another pol, in that he's seems to be much smarter than that. Maybe he knows before he can become POTUS, he needs to assure the Uber billionaires who really run things that he will not give away the store to the ultra left. Maybe that's why he let the highly tainted FISA bill slide. Had he kept his promise and filibustered the thing, the corporate media would have acted as if he had made a pact with the axis of evil and portrayed John McSame as the nation's savior.
That said, I've decided I can live with almost anything except 4 more years of McSame.... I won't like it, but I can even stomach Gates as sec of defense.
However, my final straw is: If Obama opts for a republican VP I will not only vote for and financially support Nader, but I will actively campaign against Obama.
Posted by bbbear at 06/29/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 11:23am
My encouraging "progressives" to support Nader in this election is motivated purely by a contempt for the system and Nader best expresses that contempt for "progressives", i'm nobody. Yet I would encourage "conservatives" to vote for Baldwin out of exactly the same contempt and for many of the same reasons. People vote, even though it will not be in my plans to do so this year, and one hopes, therefore, that these votes do as little harm as possible. If it were mine - and it isn't - there would be massive street demonstrations at the moment, something on the order of those in Ukraine a couple of years ago, and instead of elections this year there'd be trials and sentences and a new constitution that minimally would prohibit public service by the kind of reptiles that claim to "represent" us at the moment.
Posted by john lowell at 06/29/2008 @ 2:04pm
Does anybody here think the conservatives are going to "stay home" or vote for Bob Barr in large numbers because MCCAIN isn't "pure"?
4 more years?....listen to the purists.
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2008 @ 2:14pm
by lnp3 at 06/29/2008 @ 12:34pm...
Ah... the abusive husband metaphor...
My version of that one is slightly different. I see this administration as the abusive husband... and the US constitution and the American people it 'backs up' as the domestic abuse victims.
We can scarcely speak of the violence done to our trust, our ambitions, our well being... because to do so would likely incite more of the same. We can not reach out, because anyone who listens gets 'the treatment'... and we increasingly fight with one another for the diminishing returns of an anxious rivalrous existence based on low self esteem generated by falsely attributed guilt.
To insist that we transmutate from this state of 'emotional conflict and denial' into fresh healthy personal relations overnight... is a feeble reaction...
What we need is a restraining order, safe surroundings, and therapy...;^)
Then we can talk about what a 'perfect President' would be like...
Posted by ttr at 06/29/2008 @ 2:25pm
Another day, another depressing sign from the Obama camp.
Posted by jlister at 06/29/2008 @ 2:33pm
"The myth of a sell-out utterly mistakes the principled allegiance of the DP & its leadership and candidates to the interests of U.S. capital and U.S. imperialism."
Alas, 'tis true, 'tis true.
Obama&Co are signed on to the imperial project.
Obama just wants to be president/emperor. Hillary wanted to be empress.
That's it, folks.
The long decline. We're in it, up to, if not over, our eyeballs.
Become history buffs & keep your heads down.
Expect no substantive change, merely style & cosmetic.
Posted by sloper at 06/29/2008 @ 4:30pm
I opposed the Iraq War, and I want us out of there now! I do not think either political party has a clue about the Middle East, and we need to leave before the next President has an opportunity to display his ignorance.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/29/2008 @ 7:13pm
For years I didn't vote for president. I voted the rest of the ballot, left the top blank. This administration has converted me. I voted in '04 and will this year. For those who think it better to vote for Nader or to stay home because Obama is not pure, please think again. I point to the SCOTUS decisions in the Washington gun law case, the Seattle school board case, Ledbetter, etc. Think how close we came to losing the Gitmo decision. Abortion cases are looming - the 8th Circuit en banc reversed itself and lifted an injunction against a law requiring doctors to inform women that the abortion would be taking a unique individual life.
And the list goes on. This court rules for business 100% of the time. Remember Justice Breyer's words - Never have so few reversed so much in so short a time. And Scalia and Thomas are not likely to be the next Justices to retire.
As for Obama, I can understand the vote on the FISA bill - despite the telecom immunity, it does correct some of the worst parts of the Protect America Act. As for Gates, I'll need to think about it. But the war was the thing that got Obama serious consideration to begin with, and I don't really believe he will change much on withdrawal. What I have heard him say is he would leave only those troops needed to protect the embassy.
But to say it is all the same - no way, not any more.
Posted by ramara at 06/29/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by ramara at 06/29/2008 @ 8:15pm
"Abortion cases are looming - the 8th Circuit en banc reversed itself and lifted an injunction against a law requiring doctors to inform women that the abortion would be taking a unique individual life."
But the abortion would, in fact, be taking a unique human life, ramara. Should someone about to commit murder be shielded from their own sense of reality so as to make the killing easier? Are they helped morally that way? The SS had schools for such desensitization, you know. All you had to do was learn the lingo and the killing was made palatable, at least for a while. So does it make it any less real to call Jews "filth" or babies "fetuses" when it comes to such behavior? Has "progressivism" become so "progressive" that it can no longer take responsibility for itself morally. I mean if its your plan to murder someone why not own up to it, look it in the eye and acknowledge to yourserlf in truth what your doing. Then, afterward, go turn yourself in.
Posted by john lowell at 06/29/2008 @ 8:43pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/29/2008 @ 8:43pm
Hint, maybe?
That john lowell is NOT a "progressive Naderite"....but a GOP poser???
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2008 @ 8:57pm
"Obama needs to tread carefully or he will become, if elected, a one-term president burned to the ground in the second election by his own previous base."
And he'll be replaced by more of the same, whether the one after him is GOP or Dem.
Any one with a serious chance of becoming president who isn't signed on to the imperial project or who once in office turns against it, will be eliminated.
Posted by sloper at 06/29/2008 @ 10:50pm
We are not leaving Iraq any time soon, and if fact we will be there for a long time.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/29/2008 @ 10:54am
"We"?
You goin'?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 08:58am
Ad why will we be there a long time? I mean, Iraqi troops are about able to "stand on there own", like they have since Rumsfeld said they would be ... in 2005, according to the news sources on "the right" the Iraqi guvt is stable and making progress. why is it that you want US troops to be in the middle of a civil war for the next, what, ten years, 20, 30?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 09:18am
Where are we as a country when even a Supreme (one of the smartest we are lead to believe) is a willing victim of WH propaganda? [
Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent Wednesday 25 June 2008 by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Marjorie Cohn says, "Scalia bolstered his hysterical claim that the Boumediene decision 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed' with stale information that was proven to be false a year ago."
To bolster his argument that the Guantanamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.
According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD [Department of Defense] as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008, abandons the claim entirely."
The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees. The only one who has undisputedly taken up arms against the United States or its allies, "ISN 220," was released by political officers of the DoD against the recommendations of military officers."}
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 09:24am
crabwalk
nice
Posted by emile duBois at 06/30/2008 @ 09:40am
Scalia is Opus Dei, admittedly, so it's no surprise that he'll take CheneyBush lies as support for his dissent.
For OD, whatever it takes to win for, well, God's sake, is justified.
That certainly includes fraud.
And imprisonment without charges, and the uncharged having to prove innocence under torture. For many centuries, these were standard RC church practices with those it declared enemies, including heretics & witches.
And OD is all for turning back the clock.
Posted by sloper at 06/30/2008 @ 09:50am
Opus is spending a LOT of days in his daisy field lately, methinks.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 10:20am
Wow! I cannot believe the negativity in this blog. What did you expect? He's a sellout!! Blah, blah, blah....
Who cares?! Let us not forget that Obama also has the "most liberal voting record." Politicians do what they need to in order to WIN and THEN they implement their true agenda. When someone runs for president they have to appeal to all sides, not just their base.
I believe that Obama will be the most liberal president that we have had since Nixon (yes, NIXON). And that is a good thing. This country needs a new trajectory and frankly I really do not understand all of the criticism in here. Who else are you going to vote for? Please pull your panties out of a twist and do not be so shocked when Obama does not kiss your ass all the time.
Posted by Organotic at 06/30/2008 @ 11:36am
Iraq will be another Korea, but the side-effect would be much greater. Think of it this way: Putting Western troops in the middle of the Middle East is equibalent of putting Iranian troops right next to DC or New York.
Posted by tmddbstm12 at 06/30/2008 @ 12:33pm
<i>Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 09:24am</i>
I think the rhetoric of this article is very interesting. Note something very important here: the information in the DoD report was corrected AFTER Scalia wrote his dissent. That means that the best information Scalia had access to at the time WAS the 30 number that he cited. How does indicate a lack of intelligence?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 2:23pm
<i>Posted by sloper at 06/30/2008 @ 09:50am </i>
Opus Dei? Seriously?? The fact that a Catholic organization is listed as some nasty conspiracy in a fictional novel does not in fact prove that said organization is a nasty conspiracy in the real world. Nor does it prove, for that matter, that any particular person (i.e. Scalia) is a member of said organization. Both parts of your claim (OD=conspiracy and Scalia=OD) are therefore wholly unwarranted and, quite frankly, laughable.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 2:26pm
American imperialism cannot be tamed by a charismatic leader from one of the imperialist parties. Especially without a significant mass movement.
Period.
Posted by ElyDog at 06/30/2008 @ 3:31pm
I think the rhetoric of this article is very interesting. Note something very important here: the information in the DoD report was corrected AFTER Scalia wrote his dissent. That means that the best information Scalia had access to at the time WAS the 30 number that he cited. How does indicate a lack of intelligence?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 2:23pm
1: the article says nothing about his intelligence, and I noted that Scalia is known as one of the more intelligent Supremes, an opinion I would not dispute. He is a smart feller, just confused in some of his reasoning, especially when he operates with misinformation ( which is who killed the secular humanist
2: Scalia issued his dissent with the rest of the opinion, on June 12, 2008. The press release from the Dod was issued in July 2007, corrected to the Senate in May 2008. That means that Scalia could have had access to the correct number, which WAS NOT 30, he could have done his due diligence or had his staff do it.
There is enough false information being spread around to fan the flames of fear, we don't need it from a Supreme Court Justice too.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 4:15pm
oops, sorry, I left in part of a bad joke there, linked to a Simpsons episode. Meant to delete the whole thing.
(The secular humanist did it in the school house with miss information) is the quote.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 4:20pm
See, what will happen Thrawn, is that someone like Pontificus will come around here and attempt to use Scalias words (which are wrong) to bolster the argument that GITMO prisoners are ALL dangerous and should be confined for eternity with no access to any justice system. Even worse, a congress critter could quote Scalia in an attempt to sway new laws that are anti-justice, or to use fear to get him/herself elected/re-elected, and people will eat it up.
As I have tried to get across to Ponti, I have no doubt that some of the prisoners in GITMO are in fact very, very dangerous people, but taking Don Rumsfelds word for it, and then locking them all up with no independent verification is dangerous in itself, I would argue Stalinist. Over 500 people have been released from GITMO, many of them were held for years and had their lives and their families lives destroyed, and it turns out they were what they said they were, not terrorists. Bush has had years to come up with a plan to deal with his gulag, and he has not done it. I find it troubling and it sets bad precedent.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 4:28pm
<i>Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2008 @ 4:15pm </i>
Ah; seems I misread the article, I apologize. I just looked at it again, and somehow I had seen 2008 instead of 2007 for the DoD release.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 6:18pm
Obama is not about to let Iraq fail if he becomes president. Real-world realities will dictate that.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/01/2008 @ 6:48pm
And we eliminated a perfectly good candidate for a hair cut. As bugs bunny use to say "That's all folks". We still are slaves to the mass media. We let Chris Matthews et al make our decisions for us and we deserve what we get. Sir Obama hasn't proved terribly courageous. Let's hope that his presidency isn't as tentative as he seems to be right now and appearances with Bloomberg and Rubin aren't great encouragement.
Posted by julien38 at 07/02/2008 @ 05:18am
Posted by Organotic at 06/30/2008 @ 11:36am
Dude, I'm with you all the way. He isn't going to make everyone totally happy. He's trying to represent(and get votes from) all of the country not just self-proclaimed liberals. That's life people. I figured you knew this already.
Posted by k330k at 07/02/2008 @ 3:48pm