Hugo knows the difference between Condi & Obama. And its not gender-related.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 3 2008 22:10 utc | 3

Of course it will change, b. According to Jesse Jackson, Obama will ignore the Zionists. Uh huh. That deserves a big RIGHT.
For those of you who haven’t seen this, watch Obama grovel before AIPAC.
And, of course, there’s the Pritzkers, or at least Penny Pritzker, but it’s not clear she’s a Zionist, or Zionist supporter. She does have deep, deep pockets, however, and her bank, Superior, was heavily involved in the subprime market and is purported to be the first to create MBS.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 22:29 utc | 5

Like I said on the previous Obama thread, who knows what Obama will really do? You can’t rely on what he said, as politicians don’t do what they promise before the election. I doubt very much whether he is a puppet of his advisors.
The election campaign has proved to be very well organised (if he is elected). Who is responsible for that? There’s a whole organisation there which has worked very well. Why should we imagine that he will put himself in the hands of foreign affairs advisors who have pre-determined agendas, simply as a puppet?

Posted by: alex | Nov 3 2008 23:16 utc | 7

Just a note that rumours of Rahm tend to be started by Rahm … he also floated the idea that he was in line for VP at one point. While it’s mighty hard to tell what will happen in an Obama presidency, most Chicago viewers see a Rahm COS rule unlikely.

Posted by: Siun | Nov 4 2008 7:11 utc | 9

Afflicted Powers, a very interesting book on 9-11, makes the case that Israel is no longer strategically vital to the US, and will eventually fail because of its own internal contradictions (Palestinian birth-rate; emigration of young Israelis; no longer dominant military; more sophisticated Hamas and Hisbollah). Martin Van Creveld, the Israeli military historian, broadly agrees.
In this view, Israel’s iron grip on US politics is even stranger — you would think that “strategic thinkers” in the US establishment would begin to disengage from their former client. It would be so much easier to maintain our old dominance in the Middle Eastern if we didn’t have to defend the obstreperous Israelis.
My SO believes that American politicians’ zombi-like submission to Israel’s wishes is explained by a vast dossier of compromising information on major American leaders, collected, and even manufactured, by Mossad over the years. She could be right.

Posted by: seneca | Nov 4 2008 14:49 utc | 11

Good point, Dan! Like any schoolyard bully, Israel loves to bluster and threaten more than it loves to fight.

Posted by: seneca | Nov 4 2008 16:55 utc | 13

@Jimmy #10 – It was formerly the case that U.S. citizens who serve in foreign armies have no problem keeping their citizenship (think of those who volunteered in the Spanish Civil War [Hemingway] and the ‘Flying Tigers’ who fought the Japanese with Gen. Claire Chennault in China). U.S. citizens who become mercenary soldiers, on the other hand, forfeit their U.S. citizenship — at least that WAS the case before outfits like Blackwater grew up.
not so
for instance, from the book from the barrel of a gun: the united states and war against zimbabwe, 1965-1980, by gerald horne, which covers the prominent role of u.s. mercs in rhodesia during that period

Another incentive for U.S. mercenaries was that during the course of UDI [Unilateral Declaration of Independence] the U.S. government did not pursue actively the prosecution of their citizenry for violations of various laws that forbade involvement in foreign conflicts. Nor did these mercenaries risk losing their U.S. citizenship by fighting for Rhodesia — and, in any event, Salisbury could provide them with alternative identities if necessary. UDI occurred during an era of conservative ascendancy, as Republicans triumphed in 1968 and 1972 and maintained strength even while losing the White House in 1976. As such, there was little incentive for the executive branch to pursue these trangressions.
The prototypical mercenary was not vastly dissimilar from the prototype of the majorities being piled up by the Republicans: these mercenaries were of “conservative bent” and were infused with “disenchantment with current U.S. foreign policy.” Most had “previous service in the U.S. armed forces, a craving for adventure,” and were seized with the notion that by fighting in Africa they were “picking up where withdrawing U.S. forces left off in Vietnam.”
The conflict that gripped Rhodesia from 1965 to 1980 was quite vicious. The explosive brew of white supremacy and anticommunism mixed with a powerful Rhodesian arsenal and a desire for a more affluent life to create a war that was intense in its depravity. U.S. mercenaries contributed mightily to this strife, but the path for their arrival was lubricated by U.S. propagandists and the ancient practice of nations, like the United States, of dumping the dregs of their society elsewhere.

and there are still u.s. propagandists active at mixing up anticommunist-white supremacist kool-aid — How the West Sentenced Rhodesia to Communism
and now, w/ the new first family, they’re gonna try selling it at home

Posted by: b real | Nov 7 2008 6:00 utc | 15