Antiwar groups... are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.... both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet [and] several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.Kelly has got this wrong, of course. Obama did not "run his campaign around" any such "idea". He ran his campaign around his supporters' apparently infinite capacity for self-delusion."Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of ... Iraq Veterans Against the War.
... [T]he roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq....Astonishing, Sam? Perhaps if you're three years old."It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy....
Another possible contender... former U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke, also backed the Iraq invasion.Long term too, Kevin. You will be sorely tried. But I have confidence in you. At the end of the day -- the long, bloody day -- you will, I feel sure, be numbered among the diehard Obama faithful.Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said ... "[I]n the short term, we're going to be disappointed"....
Martin ... recognized that [his group] must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.Concern, huh? Obie must be shaking in his jackboots. I love these "delicate" antiwar groups. They would probably be quite effective if the militarists were equally delicate."There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
And finally:
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton's views "very troubling," Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.What a name: Win Without War. Win what? How? Does Tom believe that an empire can be run on Ghandian lines? Why didn't Napoleon think of that? -- Not as smart as Tom, probably.
And as for "doubt" -- at this point, doubt is about as well-founded as belief in the Easter Bunny.
Comments (3)
The rationale among many for all of this is that Obama is employing the supposedly Machiavellan adage, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".
Leaving aside the idea that these people (Clinton, Rahm, Biden, Summers, etc) actually are Obama's enemies, does that quote actually come from Machiavelli? I always thought it was a piece of dialogue from the Corleone family in the Godfather.
Posted by Michael Hureaux | November 22, 2008 10:18 PM
Posted on November 22, 2008 22:18
Obama's willful feigned ignorance of crimes against humanity by his predecessor -- as a ruse to avoid bringing Bush/Cheney to justice -- is inexcusable.
As the single most important thing he must do to return our country to the rule of law, his decision in advance to neglect this supreme duty means he is in fact aiding and abetting the most serious domestic felonies in the history of our country, as well as supporting the most egregious offenses under international law.
As Bush himself said, you're either with us or against us; the same goes for Obama.
Posted by Jay Taber | November 24, 2008 1:05 AM
Posted on November 24, 2008 01:05
"Win Without War" is a democrat front group. Their sole purpose is to keep anti-war activists supporting pro-war empty suits like The Chosen One. Other than that, they're complete astroturf.
Posted by AlanSmithee | November 24, 2008 2:34 PM
Posted on November 24, 2008 14:34