Obama out with a statement this weekend about America’s foreign policy consisting of “bluster and saber-rattling.” Don’t be fooled by Obama. He’s no more anti-war or anti-MidEast-meddling than Clinton or McCain is. Remember that “Shrub” ran in 2000 on rhetoric of a “more humble foreign policy,” all the while hiding a true Neocon agenda that was just waiting for an opportunity. The Who said it best: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
-
Business News- Icahn may run Yahoo proxy campaign: source - Reuters
- Bernanke Talks Big Picture As Inflation Looms - Forbes
- Profit Dips at Whole Foods Market - New York Times
- IAC/InterActiveCorp, Malone's Liberty End Legal Fight (Update2) - Bloomberg
- Hewlett-Packard takes heat on EDS acquisition - MarketWatch
- Craigslist sues eBay, alleges corporate spy plan - Reuters
- FBI cites escalating US mortgage fraud problem - Reuters
- Former governor: Agency deal for Wrigley not dead - USA Today
- World News
- 21.6 mln bottles of mineral water shipped to quake-hit areas - Xinhua
- UN says relief efforts in Myanmar should reach scale of Indian ... - International Herald Tribune
- Indian Police Probe Blasts After 60 Killed in Jaipur (Update1) - Bloomberg
- Budget will help cap interest rates: Australia PM - Reuters India
- Bush heads back to Mideast amid fading peace hopes - Reuters
- Latest scandal could topple Olmert - Los Angeles Times
- Security Council strongly condemns rebel attack near Khartoum - International Herald Tribune
- Pakistan's PM Optimistic About Mending Government Rift - Voice of America
- Political News
- Radwanski on politics, 'gossipy old busy-bodies' - Globe and Mail
- The Politics of Counting the Dead after Disasters - Yahoo! News
- Politics out of the picture - Scotsman
- Warren Beatty On Politics And Rumors - Atlantic Online
- Richie Riches of Karnataka politics - NDTV.com
- Today in Politics: An expensive 10p tax retreat - Independent
- New era of politics will ‘see Wales mirror the Europeans’ - ic Wales
- Wales 'is leaving Labour behind' - BBC News
-
Proud Member
9 Comments
I don’t think that logic stands up.
Republicans have contempt for government and think it’s only good for protecting rich white bastards. They used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but that died with Reagan and the New Selfishness. The Repubs masquerade as the only real tough guys, but it turns out most chickened out of Vietnam, starting with Bush and Cheney. Actually, Bill Clinton got closer to killing Osama bin Laden than the Bushies ever did.
Democrats OTOH actually believe that government can help people, as in health care (which on the evidence works better delivered by government than by insurance companies), and therefore care about catastrophes like lowering taxes while fighting an expensive war (anybody remember “guns and butter?”).
Plus, you must remember that Bush operated on the assumption that we are stupid. He offered 47 rationales for the Iraq war, none of them true, and we agreed to believe him for a while. Now he’s got the highest disapproval ratings in the history of arithmetic.
Obama knows that we can’t take care of health care, education, poverty, seniors, children, etc. while the war is leaching all the money out of the economy into the hands of bloody-handed cronies like KBR. And unlike Bush, Obama cares about bringing the budget into some kind of balance, though how you clean out the Republicans’ stables is an open question.
So just because Bush lied all day everyday about everything, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama will.
I’d have gotten the same response from GOPers had I critiqued Shrub’s “humbler foreign policy” and “no nation-building” exactly eight years ago today.
I think Obama will be the next President.
Bookmark this page and look at it, and your comment, in three years.
Your comments have no merit here. Maybe Obama will prove to be no different than the old boss, but how about offering some proof in lieu of baseless statements?.
One thing is for certain; he is no Ron Paul.
I agree with Bill! More people need to wake-up… the candidates have been preselected, nothing is left to chance. The agenda has been set, regardless of who wins. The two party system is just there to entertain the masses. Thinking is not required!
Timely article.
Warring as Lying throughout American History. It’s not a new phenomenon, politicians lying about being antiwar while campaigning, then conducting business as usual once elected.
In my mind, the burden of proof is on those who believe Obama is different. Time will tell …
If you postulate that Obama is the same as all those lying warring machines that preceded him, then you are free to vote for his opposition, who vows to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years, or you can take a chance on someone who says they opposed that same war.
He may prove to be worse than Bush, however unlikely.
Who was it that said, “I don’t care who they vote for, as long as I pick the candidates?”
“Don’t be fooled by Obama. He’s no more anti-war or anti-MidEast-meddling than Clinton or McCain is.”
Not sure what you based this comment on. I’m sure you’ve read transcripts of his *2002* speech. Key points:
He is not opposed to all war.
He was supportive of efforts to “hunt down” those who actually were responsible for 9-11. Go after Bin Ladin, not Iraq.
He is opposed to “dumb war”.
War in Iraq classifies as a “dumb war”.
I am interested in any information on Obama you can provide that helped you come to your conclusion about Obama.
You just provided it. He’s not anti-war and he’s not anti-MidEast meddling.