See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Barack Obama, Neocon
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/?p=5806
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2008-11-14 10:09:23 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 141
Comments: 3
It’s too bad more Americans didn’t listen to the neocon wunderkind, Bill Kristol, before going to the polling places and voting for Barack Obama. Back in June, Kristol told the audience at an AIPAC conference there is little difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to Iran and the potential for conflict. “Obama’s not for cutting the defense budget,” said Kristol. “Obama’s not for pulling troops back from our forward positions around the world, with the exception of Iraq. Obama and McCain don’t actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they’re arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not — and I think that’s an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn’t say he would rule out the use of force.” Unfortunately, by the time election day rolled around, few people seemed to realize or care that Obama is essentially a neocon dedicated to the very same agenda as McCain, who was handled by a bevy of neocons. McCain wasn’t called McBush for nothing. Now that the election is over and Obama won handily, it will be safe for him to show his real colors, as he did less than 12 hours after cinching the nomination back in June. During the election, few seemed to remember this undying devotion to Israel, so pervasive was the Obama voodoo trance. “A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday — and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner,” Dana Milbank wrote for the Washington Post on June 5. “He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force has ‘rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.’ He used terms such as ‘false prophets of extremism’ and ‘corrupt’ while discussing Palestinians.” He even went so far as to declare Jerusalem “the capital of Israel” and stressed, never mind international law, it must “must remain undivided,” that is to say in the hands of the Israelis. Of course, it is easy enough to dismiss all of this as pre-election pandering. However, AIPAC has an uncanny way of holding presidents and members of Congress to the straight and narrow, that is to say making them tow the radical Likud line, including confrontation with Iran. Even so, we were told by ardent Israel supporters that the candidate was at odds with the Jewish state. “Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community,” Ed Lasky wrote for American Thinker in January. Lasky mentioned Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Jr., a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “gutter religion” and depicted Jews as “bloodsuckers.” Regardless of assembled foreign policy advisers mentioned by Lasky and others, an Obama victory is not the dread of the neocons, in fact au contraire. Soon after sweeping the election, Obama picked Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. On November 6, as predicted, Emanuel accepted the job. (For more on Emanuel and his rabid, pro-war Zionism, see Paul Joseph Watson, Obama’s First Appointment Is Son Of Zionist Terrorist.) As Leon Hadar notes, the focus of neocon policies, in essence radical Likud policies, have drifted from the Republican party over to the Democrat party during the course of the Bush years. According to Hadar, “many leading Democratic activists and liberal intellectuals seem to be calling on their party to embrace an even more ‘pure’ or radical version of the neoconservative ideology.” It should be noted that “the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins,” according to Michael Lind, a former neocon. Many supported Democratic Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson before embracing Reagan, so the apparent migration back into the Democrat party should not be viewed as a dichotomy. Peter Symonds wrote on November 6: “On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.” Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”. Primary to this “bipartisan consensus” is none other than Dennis Ross, who is well known for his neocon views. Ross is Obama’s top Middle East adviser. “He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News,” notes Symonds. Is it possible an attack launched against Iran is the “test” Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madelaine Albright and others predict after Obama assumes office? It appears that it may be.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
AND RUSSIA. WWIII anyone?? Welcome the new Hitler.
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 I'm Shocked! DO YOU HEAR ME?! SHOCKED! Hey Mikey let me guess: "We're all "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
A lot of people don't realize that neocons don't just run the GOP, they also run the Democratic party's foreign policy. What was once a fringe, splinter group in the Republican party now pulls the strings of just about everyone in both parties.
Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#2. To: christine, Ferret Mike (#0)
Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.
Israelis NeoCons now". Right?
#3. To: christine (#0)
It’s too bad more Americans didn’t listen to the neocon wunderkind, Bill Kristol, before going to the polling places and voting for Barack Obama. Back in June, Kristol told the audience at an AIPAC conference there is little difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to Iran and the potential for conflict. “Obama’s not for cutting the defense budget,” said Kristol. “Obama’s not for pulling troops back from our forward positions around the world, with the exception of Iraq. Obama and McCain don’t actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they’re arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not — and I think that’s an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn’t say he would rule out the use of force.”
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest