See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama continues lurch to the right on Iraq war and militarism (Obama=Bush?)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j04.shtml
Published: Jul 6, 2008
Author: Bill Van Auken
Post Date: 2008-07-06 09:59:05 by PoliticallyIncorrect
Keywords: None
Views: 654
Comments: 36
The embrace of key elements of the Republican agenda and jettisoning of positions that he advanced during his “Change you can believe in” primary campaign have become a daily routine, as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential candidate Barack Obama carries out a dizzying turn to the right. In speeches and press appearances on Wednesday and Thursday, Obama continued to identify his campaign with support for American militarism, while backing away from his primary-campaign pledge to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq based on a definite timetable. Appearing Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Obama delivered a speech on national service, which hailed the US military and vowed to swell its ranks. While proposing the expansion of Americorps, the Peace Corps and other civilian entities, Obama made it clear that the main service to which he intended to call young Americans was the military. He began by invoking the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington and lamenting the failure of the Bush administration to issue “a call to service” and “a call for shared sacrifice.” “There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values,” he continued, praising the actions of US troops “fighting a resurgent Taliban” and “persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq.” What “values” are embodied in the systematic destruction of the Afghan and Iraqi societies and the killing and maiming of millions of civilians in the attempt to impose US hegemony over oil-rich regions of the planet, the Democratic candidate did not spell out. Instead, he insisted on the “need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century.” That these “challenges” entail the continuation of these wars and the launching of new ones is clear. As president, he said, he would “call on a new generation of Americans to join our military,” while vowing to increase US ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. With the military struggling to meet current recruitment quotas, this proposal raises the real question of whether the national service envisioned by Obama will involve the reactivation of the military draft. Speaking at a press conference in Fargo, North Dakota Thursday before addressing a group of veterans, Obama allowed that he expected to “refine” his positions on Iraq during an upcoming trip to the US occupied country this summer. Backing away from his earlier pledge to carry out a 16-month withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, the candidate said, “I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.” Meanwhile, he couched his opposition to the continued occupation of Iraq at current levels in terms of what he posed as the more urgent necessity for sending troops to Afghanistan. Obama’s advisors have been more explicit. His top foreign policy advisor, Anthony Lake, a former Clinton administration national security advisor, told the press that an incoming Democratic administration was committed to maintaining “a residual force for clearly defined missions” in Iraq, as well as “preparedness to go back in,” if needed. “That is not a ‘cut and run’ and let’s just see what happens,’” said Lake, one of the architects of the Clinton administration’s “humanitarian” interventions in Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans. Meanwhile, there is growing speculation that Obama is prepared to keep current US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his post and the campaign has agreed to participate in a series of transition teams being set up in military, intelligence and police agencies to assure the seamless continuation of the “global war on terrorism.” Having won the Democratic primaries in no small part by posturing as an opponent of the Iraq war and indicting his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for voting to authorize it, Obama is now presenting himself as another “wartime president.” The lurch to the right by the Obama campaign is so blatant that it has aroused substantial commentary in the bourgeois press, some of it gloating and some of it reflecting concerns that this maneuver is so naked that it may alienate substantial layers of the population from the electoral process and expose the fraud of the entire two-party system. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, cited concerns Thursday that Obama’s lurch to the right posed “a particular risk among young voters, who have turned out and volunteered in droves for Obama and may be disillusioned by his display of old-style politics.” In the gloating category was an editorial published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Bush’s Third Term.” The Journal, whose editorial board has generally reflected the views within the right-wing sections of the Republican Party that dominate the Bush administration, pointed to Obama’s continuous warnings against McCain’s victory resulting in “George Bush’s third term.” “Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it,” the editorial affirmed. It went on to note Obama’s announcement two weeks ago that he will vote for legislation legalizing the Bush administration’s sweeping domestic wiretapping program, while granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that helped it carry out this unlawful spying operation. It pointed to the pullback from campaign promises of a timetable for withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. And it cited his embrace of government funding for “faith-based” social programs, as well as a series of calculated statements on so-called hot button issues of the political right, ranging from guns to the death penalty. Another demagogic appeal that the Obama campaign has jettisoned is the previous pretense that he opposed NAFTA and sympathized with the protectionist outlook of the trade union bureaucracy. In a recent interview with Fortune magazine, the candidate declared, “I’ve always been a proponent of free trade,” and allowed that some of the primary rhetoric on the subject had been “overheated.” “Now that he is in a general election,” the Journal commented, “he can’t scare the business community too much.” It would appear that the stock exchange is not at all frightened. According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has netted nearly $8 million in contributions from the securities and investment houses, almost double the amount received by his Republican rival, McCain. The Journal editorial concludes cynically, though justifiably, that “the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not.” In the end, this right-wing voice of Wall Street criticizes Obama not for his policies, but rather for what it terms his questionable “political character,” meaning doubts about whether he can be trusted to carry through the wars abroad and attacks on the working class at home that the ruling elite requires. Obama’s turn to the right is the manifestation of a system in which the policies of both major parties are determined by a small wealthy layer of the population, which holds the will and sentiments of the American population in contempt. The right-wing agenda being spelled out by the Obama campaign sets the stage for yet another election in which the masses of working people in the US will find themselves politically disenfranchised, with no viable means to express their immense hostility to the policies of war, destruction of living standards, and political reaction identified with the Bush administration. Obama’s rapid evolution in the wake of the primaries demonstrates the politics of deception and manipulation of public opinion that his campaign has embodied from the outset. It has never represented an insurgency from below, but rather a bid by elements of the ruling elite to effect certain definite but limited changes in policy, while using Obama to supply a fresh face for American imperialism under conditions in which it is discredited at home and abroad. The attempt to use the Obama campaign to delude broad layers of the population seeking change enjoys the active and crucial support of most of what passes for the American “left.” They seek to cover up or apologize for the right-wing trajectory of the Democrats. Some put forward the cynical argument that Obama is merely doing what it takes to get elected—the American people, they would argue, are backward and right-wing. Others maintain that he is reacting to pressure from the establishment and must be pushed back on course through pressure from the left. Typical of this second school is the left liberal journalist Arianna Huffington, who posted on her web site advice to Obama, warning him that “tacking to the center is a losing strategy.” Instead, she called upon him to “appeal to the 82 million people who did not vote in 2004.” She continued, “Isn’t galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d’être of the Obama campaign in the first place?” In reality, Obama is now running on his real program, that of a corrupt and reactionary big business politician. He will leave it to figures like Huffington, the Nation, and others on the so-called left to continue promoting illusions in his candidacy, while he makes his pitch to his key constituencies, the financial aristocracy and the forces of the state. The Democrats have no interest in coming into office with a mandate for “fundamental change,” because they have no desire or intention of carrying out such transformations. In fact, Obama’s latest campaign swing is aimed in no small part at creating a new and decidedly conservative base for politics that will in key respects represent continuity with those of the Bush administration. In the end, the promotion of illusions in Obama and the Democrats serves only to block the emergence of a genuine alternative based upon the independent political mobilization of the broad mass of working people. One thing is certain. The policies of an incoming Obama administration will not be determined by the erstwhile populist posturing of the candidate or by the pressure exerted by the left liberals. Rather, they will be dictated by the enormity of the economic and political crisis confronting American capitalism and what is required under these conditions to defend the class interests of the ruling elite. The turn to the right on the campaign trail is preparation for this essential task.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PoliticallyIncorrect (#0)
Good heavens... Words right out of George Bushes own mouth a few months ago. It will be interesting to see how the O'Piles twist and spin this to SAVE their SAVIOR.
The man is a chameleon on plaid cloth.
hmmmm...like Cyni, this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft.
Obummer is also a white Israeli firster in a black suit that is running a con on the blacks of America and the knee padder white guilters. Con of the century is being run and they call him, "Savior".... Disgusting.
LOL The tragic condition and abuse of our army and marine forces is a traitorous scandal. The Armed forces of the World's premier nation has has turned into a paper tiger under the leadership of smirk/snile/and pompous. Hardly surprising that this would please the World Socialist Web Site. Even more surprising that you 29%'ers doggedly hang in there.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
If one probes into this Bush/Obama proposal, the end result is this... They are mouthing, "service to the country" which means that those with an "in" would do time in some desk paper shuffling job and the inner city hoods along with small towner nobodies would be cannon fodder.
Having won the Democratic primaries in no small part by posturing as an opponent of the Iraq war and indicting his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for voting to authorize it, Obama is now presenting himself as another “wartime president.” The lurch to the right by the Obama campaign is so blatant that it has aroused substantial commentary in the bourgeois press, some of it gloating and some of it reflecting concerns that this maneuver is so naked that it may alienate substantial layers of the population from the electoral process and expose the fraud of the entire two-party system. in this case, what difference does the website make? the commentary, for the most part, is citing obama's own words and actions.
Ahhh, therin lies the hidden nugget of truth. "they will be dictated by the enormity of the economic and political crisis confronting American capitalism and what is required under these conditions to defend the class interests of the ruling elite". There is that term again...the ruling elite....that the O'Piles hate to see.
Having won the Democratic primaries in no small part by posturing as an opponent of the Iraq war and indicting his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for voting to authorize it, Obama is now presenting himself as another “wartime president.” The lurch to the right by the Obama campaign is so blatant that it has aroused substantial commentary in the bourgeois press, some of it gloating and some of it reflecting concerns that this maneuver is so naked that it may alienate substantial layers of the population from the electoral process and expose the fraud of the entire two-party system. I'll bump to that. What if they threw an election, and nobody showed up? "Come out and Be Separate...." and all that.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Now that is a goal to work toward!
I'm convinced that they're so in love with BHO that when he says one thing, they hear something else. Obama talks war, they hear anti-war. Obama talks global welfare tax, they hear fiscal responsibility.
And I had the audacity to vote for Ron Paul in May. What was I thinking? Voting my conscious and all.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
hmmmm...like Cyni, this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft. He'll lose the young votes real quick with talk like that. The overwhelming majority of the college students I speak with at the University I attend are hard-core anti-war. When my classmates find out I spent 15 years in the army, many of them ask my opinion about the war and/or about serving in the armed forces today. I tell them how serving helped me personally, but I also tell them that in today's environment I would not join. I've had sitdown talks with a few who were contemplating joining. I did my best to talk them out of it and I'm pretty sure I succeeded. None of these fine young men or women should risk losing their lives for Operation "Bush's Folly." At this point in time this country does not deserve their sacrifice.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
The tragic condition and abuse of our army and marine forces is a traitorous scandal. The Armed forces of the World's premier nation has has turned into a paper tiger under the leadership of smirk/snile/and pompous. Hardly surprising that this would please the World Socialist Web Site. Even more surprising that you 29%'ers doggedly hang in there. I'll tell you what makes me LOL. Just a couple of months ago you and the rest of your lefty friends were using Obama's supposed opposition to the war as a reason to vote for him. Now you talk about the "tragic condition and abuse of our army and marine forces." Yeah right. You want to improve the "tragic condition and abuse of our army and marine forces?" Then bring the troops home nimrod. Increasing the size of the military in order to continue the two-party frauds "worldwide democracy tour" is not the answer. This makes you no different than the republicans you supposedly hate so much. You're no different than the Bushbots or the Clintonistas before them. LOL! You two-party fraud dopes are a riot.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Fighting for the establishment's global order wars to secure 'free trade', world wide multicultural harmony and unified politically correct governance is a waste, not a sacrifice. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Pitiful. ;-( The wonderment never drifts over to the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" candidate and his neocon supporters and surrogates for you and your toadies.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
The wonderment never drifts over to the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" candidate and his neocon supporters and surrogates for you and your toadies. Still trying to accuse non-Obama worshippers with being McCain supporters eh? Now THAT's pitiful. LOL. Here's a clue knucklehead. Everyone knows that McCain and the GOP are warmongering sociopaths. That's a gimmie. It's not them pretending that they are the "peace candidate." It hasn't been McCain supporters posting over and over an over again for the last six months about how he was going to bring change and peace to the country and the world. LOL! Your lame attempts just show's everyone how weak your argument is. LOL!
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
I'm beginning a 2008 primer for you 29%'ers. 1) Retaliation does not equal Interventionism. 2) One candidate is loaded with neocon supporters and surrogates, the other isn't. 3) Dogmatic adherence to failed a failed and disgraced political party is psychotic. Get back to me if/when you can intellectually digest these.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
2) One candidate is loaded with neocon supporters and surrogates, the other isn't. 3) Dogmatic adherence to failed a failed and disgraced political party is psychotic. Get back to me if/when you can intellectually digest these. Keeping the troops in Iraq and insinuating a draft has nothing to do with retaliation. 2) One candidate is loaded with neocon supporters and surrogates, the other isn't. Really. Your party's leadership has been working hand-in-hand with those neocons since they won back the Congress. They are, even now, working to attack Iran. 3) Dogmatic adherence to failed a failed and disgraced political party is psychotic. You are the one supporting such a party, not I. Pot, meet ketttle.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Still trying to accuse non-Obama worshippers with being McCain supporters eh? Now THAT's pitiful. LOL.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Even the admitted socialists are saying their fellow socialist Obummer is a loser and the O'Piles are looking for a new playbook. Everyday Obama looks and acts more like Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehehehehehe I like that BushObama....hehehehehehehe
Incessant bashing of one of the two candidates (that has a snowball's chance in hell of election) is defacto support of the other. Your persistence in this nonsense (clear to all posters and lurkers) is not only pitiful, but laughable, disingenuous, and reflects an irrational presumptiveness of lack of intelligence of readers herein.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
That might be prophetic. After 8 years of Clinton, a lot of well-meaning but deceived people pinned all of their hopes on Bush, in the face of a lot of evidence that the guy would be bad news (though nobody thought he'd be THIS bad). Now that Bush fatigue has taken the place of Clinton fatigue, equally deceived people are pinning all of their hopes on Obama, in spite of any and all damning evidence that the guy's just another political con.
You and your mates go right ahead with your insanity. If I were bleating into the face of the vast majority of Americans that have long since recognized Bush and his administration as the worst in history I would hope a friend would arrange an intervention.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
At that level, all but a couple of them are NOT establishment sock puppets. They have to be globalists whether they're in the "R" or "D" wing of the neocon national party, national media, etc. Some are just more 'progressive' than others. At least visibly or admittedly; before they were against it! ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Your persistence in this nonsense (clear to all posters and lurkers) is not only pitiful, but laughable, disingenuous, and reflects an irrational presumptiveness of lack of intelligence of readers herein. What's clear to all posters and lurkers is your failing attempt to try and change the subject and deflect away from Obama's flip-flop on Iraq and his apparent embrace of a draft in order to carry out his goals of spreading democracy throughout the world at the point of a gun. LOL! What's even more clear to posters and lurkers but still unclear to democan ideologues like yourself as well as the republicrat ideologues on freik repugnant and LP is that Obama = McCain. LOL!
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
The only ones bleating in this country are the sheep who continue voting for the two-party fraud and expect to see some sort of change in the direction of the country. There was no change when power shifted from democan to republicrat and there will be no change when power shifts back to the democans. The ony thing that will change is that democan ideologues like yourself will begin to embrace the war you (falsely) claim to be against today. LOL! You're not fooling anyone on this site.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Oh yes, Obama is definitely testing the water and the wind - his paymasters want him to take on Iran. Also let's not forget that Schumer and Rahn Emanuel are the Dem campaign head honchos. But I think Obama and his handlers will soon discover that Americans are not very keen on having their children conscripted to fight and die for Israel. How very anti-semetic of them to feel this way.
I thot Smirk and Snarl was hilarious for Bush and Cheney, but now in honor of Obamas tilt to Israel also, some are using this... "Smirk, Snarl and Schmuck" Sounds like a a New Yawk law firm???? Fell out of my hi chair again. hehehehe
Sounds like a a New Yawk law firm???? Fell out of my hi chair again. hehehehe I always thought that "Dewy, Scruem, and Howe" was pretty funny.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
But I think Obama and his handlers will soon discover that Americans are not very keen on having their children conscripted to fight and die for Israel. How very anti-semetic of them to feel this way. That's why this test run was executed. I doubt there will be another mention of it before the election.
With a nic of "Schmuck" for Obama, there a lot of possibilities for his VP.
None of them good either.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Of course it does. Only a fool would think otherwise
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx O'bummer's promises of "change" have been so consistently and deliberately vague that he could, upon assuming the presidency, mail an envelope with 76 cents worth of change to every American, then look into the cameras with a straight face and say "I promised you all change, and I DELIVERED!"
As president, he said, he would “call on a new generation of Americans to join our military,” while vowing to increase US ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.
#2. To: PoliticallyIncorrect (#0)
#3. To: PoliticallyIncorrect, Cynicom, scrapper2, orangedog, Hayek Fan, Jethro Tull, Arator, iconoclast, a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
With the military struggling to meet current recruitment quotas, this proposal raises the real question of whether the national service envisioned by Obama will involve the reactivation of the military draft.
#4. To: Jethro Tull, Christine (#2)
The man is a chameleon on plaid cloth.
#5. To: Cynicom (#1)
twist and spin
#6. To: christine (#3)
this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft.
#7. To: iconoclast (#5)
Meanwhile, there is growing speculation that Obama is prepared to keep current US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his post and the campaign has agreed to participate in a series of transition teams being set up in military, intelligence and police agencies to assure the seamless continuation of the “global war on terrorism.”
#8. To: PoliticallyIncorrect, Jethro tull, Christine, lodwick, TwentyTwelve (#0)
One thing is certain. The policies of an incoming Obama administration will not be determined by the erstwhile populist posturing of the candidate or by the pressure exerted by the left liberals. Rather, they will be dictated by the enormity of the economic and political crisis confronting American capitalism and what is required under these conditions to defend the class interests of the ruling elite.
#9. To: PoliticallyIncorrect (#0)
#10. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#9)
What if they threw an election, and nobody showed up?
#11. To: Cynicom (#1)
It will be interesting to see how the O'Piles twist and spin this to SAVE their SAVIOR.
#12. To: christine (#3)
#13. To: christine (#3)
With the military struggling to meet current recruitment quotas, this proposal raises the real question of whether the national service envisioned by Obama will involve the reactivation of the military draft.
#14. To: iconoclast (#5)
LOL
#15. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
At this point in time this country does not deserve their sacrifice.
#16. To: christine (#3)
hmmmm...like Cyni, this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft.
#17. To: iconoclast, christine (#16)
(Edited)
Pitiful. ;-(
#18. To: Hayek Fan (#14)
#19. To: iconoclast (#18)
1) Retaliation does not equal Interventionism.
#20. To: iconoclast (#18)
I'm beginning a 2008 primer for you 29%'ers.
#21. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#11)
Obama talks global welfare tax, they hear fiscal responsibility.
#22. To: Hayek Fan (#17)
Still trying to accuse non-Obama worshippers with being McCain supporters eh? Now THAT's pitiful. LOL.
#23. To: Cynicom (#21)
I like that BushObama
#24. To: Hayek Fan (#19)
You are the one supporting such a party
#25. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#23)
Now that Bush fatigue has taken the place of Clinton fatigue, equally deceived people are pinning all of their hopes on Obama, in spite of any and all damning evidence that the guy's just another political con.
#26. To: iconoclast (#22)
Incessant bashing of one of the two candidates (that has a snowball's chance in hell of election) is defacto support of the other.
#27. To: iconoclast (#24)
(Edited)
If I were bleating into the face of the vast majority of Americans that have long since recognized Bush and his administration as the worst in history I would hope a friend would arrange an intervention.
#28. To: christine, iconoclast (#3)
hmmmm...like Cyni, this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft.
#29. To: scrapper2, christine, jethro tull, rupertpupkin (#28)
#30. To: Cynicom (#29)
(Edited)
"Smirk, Snarl and Schmuck"
#31. To: scrapper2 (#28)
#32. To: Hayek Fan (#30)
#33. To: Cynicom (#32)
With a nic of "Schmuck" for Obama, there a lot of possibilities for his VP.
#34. To: christine (#3)
like Cyni, this writer wonders if Obama's service envisions a draft.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#35. To: PoliticallyIncorrect (#0)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#36. To: IndieTX (#34) (Edited)
Any supporter of Obama can do the math and see it cannot be done. When the draft appears, and it will, and little Johnny has to go off to war, Mom and Dad will be proud they voted for Obama. I saw this happen in 1940 and there was no war.
Of course it does. Only a fool would think otherwise
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest