|
“If the only tool you have is a hammer …”
"… you will see every problem as a nail."
The foreign policy persons Obama selected for his cabinet are hawks.
Clinton as Sec State, Gates at Defense, a General as national security advisor and an Admiral as director of national intelligence. (Is there any other democracy that puts so many (ex-)military people into political positions?).
Susan S. Rice at the U.N., the worst choice possible after John R. Bolton. She will argue to bomb this or that country whenever something complicate might happen there. Africom will get a lot of stuff to do.
Obama promised to increase the U.S. troop strength by some 90,000. 20,000 active military will be dedicated to homeland security within the U.S. The hammer will get bigger and the urge to use it even stronger.
What country will he bomb first? We already know of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But where else does he want to kill? Somalia? Sudan? Kenia?
As for Change – why not use some nukes?
Well – where is the difference if Obama sticks to the usual U.S. foreign policy?
What’s usual U.S. foreign policy? Seriously… Bush’s? Clinton’s? Or you make no distinction between the 2?
Obama has done nothing yet. But as I mentioned previously & I’m sure you are aware, his team’s preparation to hit the ground running is noteworthy. That his policies have been held close to the vest has troubled me. But then, after 8 yrs. of Bushco I’ve developed a tendency towards skepticism of everything, and for good reason.
My ideal for economic turnaround… I don’t know, there’s not much to go on. But beyond the Goldman Sachs crowd, he has appointed some progressives to his econ team who I am familiar with and who I respect. Beyond that, Roubini has been effusive describing the high esteem he holds for BO’s econ team, and Roubini knows a bit more than I. I’ve seen similar praise from econ folks I’ve come to respect, across the board. This, among other things, has given me pause to check my skepticism and give them a chance.
That said, the reason I frequent MofA for some years now is precision, verifiability & relevance of topics you’ve chosen to address and spotlight. Many many times you’ve dug up stuff that likely would have gotten past me. The details on alleged Iranian supplied explosives for example. Details on misrepresentation of Georgia event (eg: “The Bear is awakening”) another one. Misrepresentation in western media of Iran IEAA inspsections, etc etc…. whole lot more.
I appreciate and acknowledge your effort, time, & contributions. It’s made a difference. This stuff matters to me: helps paint a picture of reality.
In my own mind, I would charactarize your efforts as making distinctions: peeling back the covers, looking more closely, giving good evidence that what’s being promoted is a lie. Since BushCo’s crime spree began, my reading/referances/media/blogs etc. have constantly been refined to focus on what I have described as my perception of your style and substance… there’s only so many hours in a day, and I try not to waste time reading “Judy Miller” type fluff stuff.
So that said, your comment I responded to makes no distinctions of any kind that I can see. You impute upon BO a motive/desire ( “where else does he want to kill”) not only not in evidence, but evil. Rather than make distinctions between he & Bush, you conflate them. And it’s this tendency of right wing propaganda media which has raised my ire and, AFAIC, contributed so widely to the intellectual poverty which is more responsable than anything else (IMO) for allowing Bush’s crime spree to run it’s course.
I’ve seen nothing… nothing, to suggest BO’s contemplated “(who) he want to kill?”, & read that comment as damn intellectually sloppy. It in no way indicates anything he has, in reality, done to this point. And in fact, there’s plenty of indicators that his foriegn policy is going to be a whole lot different from what we’ve seen not just under Bushco, but Bill Clinton as well.
But most assuredly, what he’s going to do is unknown… we’ll have to wait and see. Personally, I’ve accepted that. And I’ve accepted very good reasons why he’s playing it that way, although it’s not what I’d like to see.
So anyway, I’m sure not trying to piss you off… I just object for reasons stated.
Lastly, it’s real easy… really easy, to get washed up in a backwash of group think motivated by retaliation against damage Bushco has wrought. I really, really understand that. But given severity of what BO has to deal with… from econ to foreign policy addressing so much that’s coming apart at the seams, I can see wisdom in staying out of the factitious recrimination crowd in order to focus solely on what the hell he’s going to do about any of this stuff.
On so many levels, it’s mindboggling.
He’s going to have to show me evidence of what you accuse him of before I buy into any of that stuff. There’s just too much at stake here.
MofA is your place, and obviously you can do what you want. Personally I hope you continue what you’ve done in the past. But this stuff, and Deb’s rants on “exceptionalsim” (crap… ) loses my attention fast. I’ve been around the block a few times… more than enough to know a critic w/out solutions when I see one. Being the critic, that’s the easy part.
Show me really enlightened ideas… stuff that rises above the crowd and speaks to needs in eye opening ways, that’s what I’m interested in. I already know what’s wrong.
Posted by: jdmckay | Dec 2 2008 16:27 utc | 30
|
