Dionne: ‘Obama’s Bush Doctrine.’
Dionne: ‘Obama’s Bush Doctrine.’
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne argues, “In electing Barack Obama, the country traded the foreign policy of the second President Bush for the foreign policy of the first President Bush.” Noting Obama’s willingness to heed the advice of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Dionne says Obama’s realist foreign policy mindset resembles that of the elder Bush:
Obama’s national security choices are already causing grumbling from parts of the antiwar left, even if Obama made clear six years ago that while he was with them on Iraq, he was not one of them.
Ironically, Obama is likely to show more fidelity to George H.W. Bush’s approach to foreign affairs than did the former president’s own son. That’s change, maybe even change we can believe in, but it’s not the change so many expected.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Funny how during the primary that Obama disagreed with HRC on foreign policy but it is rumored that he (Obama) will make her Sec of State. Fact is more strange than fiction, I suppose.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:21 amWell, at least Pres George H.W. Bush did not have a foreign policy of preventive first strikes, where we claim the right to attack someone because it looks like they might be thinking about considering attacking us.
And Sen Clinton may, technically, be constitutionally ineligible to be Sec of State because the emoluments of that office were increased during her current term as Senator. To confirm her would be to say that the Constitution is meaningless.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:24 amLet’s not thrust the President-elect toward the chopping block just yet.
His choices to date for cabinet positions and those selected to join his inner circle in the White House seem reasonable and pragmatic, even bold. This is not the time to force radical change upon slow moving institutions: rather, it is the time for a steady hand and the selection of individuals who will institute new policies and approaches.
In the case of the Department of Defense, holding on to existing leadership for at least the first year is a wise move, as efforts are made to draw down troop strength and rebuild a broken Army.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:25 amBush 41’s Foreign Policy?
Well, there’s change we can believe in, alrighty!!!
November 28th, 2008 at 10:30 amHow will history books teach the concept of Bush invading and occupying Iraq so he could win a second term in the White House? When people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rove are in any decision making processes, there really wasn’t any “foreign policy” other than political posturing, was there?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:30 amDid Gorbachev add, “What’s good for General Motors is good for everyone?”
November 28th, 2008 at 10:32 amI remain in stitches laughing at and because of the Monday Morning quarterbacks who are nitpicking almost every appointment Barack has made to date. The only one that has not been met with some sort of doomsday prediction is his appointment for Social Secretary. How did everyone miss that one? OMG the sky is falling.
I have a simple question for all of the experts who are so righteous about the horrible mistakes Barack is making with his selections. That question is: If you have all the right answers why aren’t YOU on the transition team or better yet why didn’t you run for President in 2008?
We are 54 days out from the inauguration and already we are seeing the financial markets responding positively to Barack and what he is doing. World leaders around the country seem to be doing backflips with glee that we will soon have an adult in the White House providing leadership. Our “enemy” al-Qaeda seems to be a bit upset that we have selected Barack because his selection upsets their paradigm. The populace of the world is elated that we are replacing a wannabe cowboy with intelligence and thoughfulness and grace.
However the Monday Morning quarterbacks spend all of their time wringing their hands over “issues” that will not be in office for nearly 2 more months. Chill out, ok? Let the man do his job and set up his administration. Support the efforts to fix the wrongs of the last 8 years. Stop whining like a bunch of right-wing talk show hosts for christ’s sake.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:36 amIf you have all the right answers why aren’t YOU on the transition team or better yet why didn’t you run for President in 2008?
Oh curlew, tha’s too easy: Cuz I’m not a bought-and-paid-for clone of the power elite, as is our new Presmidunt and all his nominees…
Geez, pal. Try harder, please…
November 28th, 2008 at 10:42 amSome of the Most persuasive Criticism of George W. Bush’s decision to Invade and Occupy Iraq was made by Memebers of his Father’s Administration.
For example, here’s Dick Cheney in 1992…
Going to Baghdad… would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
“All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,” Cheney said.
“Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”
Except for Geroge H.W. Bush’s BETRAYAL of the Kurds and the Shiites ( A Major Flaw IMHO), I think he conducted the first Iraq War pretty successfully. Unlike his son, Bush 41 LISTENED to Colin Powell.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:43 amtokin librul Says:
If you have all the right answers why aren’t YOU on the transition team or better yet why didn’t you run for President in 2008?
Oh curlew, tha’s too easy: Cuz I’m not a bought-and-paid-for clone of the power elite, as is our new Presmidunt and all his nominees…
Geez, pal. Try harder, please…
November 28th, 2008 at 10:49 amOh! I think there are reasons you’re not sharing like those days spent in the nut house
Good morning camper’s,…Last I checked this was still a progressive site…Not an echo chamber, also with the exception of really foul language we are entitled to speak our mind’s and throw out ideas for other’s to read…This has alway’s been a site where diffrent view’s have been expressed and many bashed..
Isn’t it about time we stop treating our own like they are troll’s just because they offer up a diffrent opinion, I think so…What are you afraid of.? That a diffrent view may be more correct than your own or perhap’s that in the end their view may be correct…What ever…Time to stop and think who you may be running off…
I really don’t care what day it is or how many day’s untill Obama take’s over the white house, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I frankly would like to read their comment’s……Blessings
November 28th, 2008 at 10:55 amOh! I think there are reasons you’re not sharing like those days spent in the nut house
November 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hunh? Say What? WTF are you raving about?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:57 amGood Morning Wayne, nice to read you here….Blessings
November 28th, 2008 at 11:06 amUgh. This is the same George H.W. Bush who dodged indictment in the Iran-Contra scandal because loyal underlings refused to talk. (Gee, same applies to Bob Gates!)
The same George H.W. Bush who backed the Star Wars boondoggle and massive military buildups.
And Dionne thinks this is good news?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:11 amGood morning, Witch1. Always good to see you, too. :)
November 28th, 2008 at 11:15 amThere is ample evidence to conclude that following Bush senior’s lead on foreign policy will cause yet another international catastrophe. Lest anyone forget, it was the realpolitic brainiacs of the first Bush administration who coddled Saddam, and told him they would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait. That set the stage for the current mess because Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule left Saddam in power.
If he had removed Saddam then, it would have been much cheaper, in money and lives.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:20 amBarfly,
Removed Saddam, and relaced him with WHAT ???
November 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amDoes that mean one of his daughters will be president?
If H.W. had started a green revolution or reformed healthcare for the better he’d be a good president.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:23 amBadger Says:
Barfly,
Removed Saddam, and relaced him with WHAT ???
A UN mandated election, and elected leadership. Just like the one WE paid for — remember?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:25 amBadger Says:
Barfly,
Removed Saddam, and relaced him with WHAT ???
Are you arguing that the leadership that would have been elected during an election back then, would be substantially different than the one currently in place?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:27 amWake me on Jan 21, 2009 and tell me if the OBAMA administration is the “NEW WORLD ORDER”
November 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am“We are seeing that if it’s bad for America, it’s bad for us all.”
Isn’t this an acknowledgement that countries are now so interconnected, that we’ve achieved a tacit “one-world” status?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:32 ami think a better question for the readers at thinkprogress.org is “what is america’s foreign policy?”
is it our policy to spread democracy?
is it our self-appointed role of “world cop” (almost operating independently of NATO and the UN)?
why are we in iraq?
what is our larger, future agenda for the middle east?
what is the purpose of our current posturing towards iran? and syria?
how do neighbor nation states and our relationships with them factor in to this?
of course, these should lead to much bigger questions… but why is no one asking them?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:36 amBarfly,
Elections are always a tricky thing in Iraq, because the Shiites are in the majority, the Sunnis were in Power, and the Kurds want out.
My comments are being Moderated, so I don’t know what’s getting thru.
Two things have occurred to change things in Iraq since 1992.
Sergio de Mello, the veteran UN official, was killed by a truck bomb…effectively ending the UN’s role in Iraq.
Sept. 11
November 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am#24 Wearechange, You just did and thank you for the good post and question…Blessings
November 28th, 2008 at 11:42 amI am so gonna kick AbleCluster’s lame ass
Hey buddy nobody gives a shit about your stupid Privacy Center!!!
November 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am______
Witch1 Says:
Isn’t it about time we stop treating our own like they are troll’s just because they offer up a diffrent opinion…”
November 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
______
And how many times does this question have to be posed by a lib before you all acknowledge that the far left is just like the far right in that regard? ;)
November 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pmthank you, witch1.
i find this recent article on http://www.chris-floyd.com to be very interesting, and i especially appreciated some of the user comments. ruminating on these themes in context with the perkins’ interview on democracy now, and richard falks’ recent paper “9/11: More than meets the eye” some very challenging topics come to the fore.
it is doubtful that these topics will ever be addressed in mainstream media, whether left or right, but these things are indeed very real — as difficult as they may be to face.
and whether addressed by the media establishment or not, i think it’s very important that people are informed: the likelihood of an entire nation being swept up in the fervor to march to another war is radically reduced when we know the mechanisms by which we’re manipulated to support these wars.
i think many eyes are watching israel, iran, syria, and pakistan right now. certainly, the nation has been primed by recent statements from colin powell and joe biden… we most definitely do live in a dangerous world… and many are watching.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pmBarfly says:
If he had removed Saddam then, it would have been much cheaper, in money and lives.
But it is still an international war crime.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pmAnd how many times does this question have to be posed by a lib before you all acknowledge that the far left is just like the far right in that regard? ;)
To me, it’s irrelevant. I rarely attack another progressive.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pmJuan C. Says:
But it is still an international war crime.
Hey Juan! Long time, no see…
But with a UN mandate, the blame is spread around a bit more.
If the Coalition that was assembled by Bushwhacker 1 had gone in, stabilized the area (no al qaeda in Iraq, back then), and had UN monitored elections, would the outcome have been substantially different? Wouldn’t it have been accomplished with much less damage, in every sense of the word?
November 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pmof course, these should lead to much bigger questions… but why is no one asking them?
Because they are not part of the allowed debate. When it comes to US foreign policy (or any other superpower’s in turn, for that matter) you get two choices: either we wipe out the people (for their good) or we remove their government by financing the the opposition.
Asking if that’s good for them or if we would like the same thing done to us, is of course, out of the debate.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmHey Juan! Long time, no see…
Nice reading you, sir.
But with a UN mandate, the blame is spread around a bit more
Hehehe. Agreed. You chose the perfect words.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pmNoting Obama’s willingness to heed the advice of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Dionne says Obama’s realist foreign policy mindset resembles that of the elder Bush:
Ok, why is that no one GETS IT that Obama is going to be the one making policy. He will listen to what Gates and Scrowcroft have to say along with a lot of his other policy advisers. But he will be making the decisions and until such time as he makes a decision I disagree with, I am supporting Obama. To my mind he hired these people because they have knowledge he needs and because having Gates in office will give the military transition a better chance of not imploding.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmJuan C. Says:
of course, these should lead to much bigger questions… but why is no one asking them?
Because they are not part of the allowed debate. When it comes to US foreign policy (or any other superpower’s in turn, for that matter) you get two choices: either we wipe out the people (for their good) or we remove their government by financing the the opposition.
Asking if that’s good for them or if we would like the same thing done to us, is of course, out of the debate.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmthat’s not the exactly question i had in mind. i was thinking more along the lines of: how do our clandestine foreign policies affect our domestic economic/political realities? and what can be done to stop it?
Stubain Says:
Funny how during the primary that Obama disagreed with HRC on foreign policy but it is rumored that he (Obama) will make her Sec of State. Fact is more strange than fiction, I suppose.
Could it possibly be that Obama is not hiring HRC for her foreign policy beliefs but for other reasons? Could it be possible that Obama is actually going to be the decision maker in his presidency and he is hiring experienced people to carry out his decisions?
November 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmtokin librul Says:
Bush 41’s Foreign Policy?
Well, there’s change we can believe in, alrighty!!!
How about you wait until Obama actually makes a policy change before criticizing him? Just because E.J. Dionne says something DOES NOT make it true.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pmhow do our clandestine foreign policies affect our domestic economic/political realities? and what can be done to stop it?
Well, if you want to stop the foreign policy, you will have to be prepared to fight your own corporations. Imagine that you stop paying the hugely public funded military, pharma and agricultural corporations (the backbone of the US economy, IMO). Wall Street will try to kick the sh*t out of you, Bakunists.
Heh.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pmtokin librul Says:
If you have all the right answers why aren’t YOU on the transition team or better yet why didn’t you run for President in 2008?
Oh curlew, tha’s too easy: Cuz I’m not a bought-and-paid-for clone of the power elite, as is our new Presmidunt and all his nominees…
No you are not, what you are is a complete and utter fool.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pmSame old same old…
November 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pmwearechange Says:
of course, these should lead to much bigger questions… but why is no one asking them?
I believe that Obama is asking those questions and asking more questions. I also believe that Obama will come up with a cohesive foreign policy that will protect us here at home and will be respectful of our world neighbors. Until he does something to prove me wrong, he has my complete support.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pmwearechange Says:
i think a better question for the readers at thinkprogress.org is “what is america’s foreign policy?”
November 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
___________
It’s a good question, and I think it’s one we all talk about here quite a lot.
I don’t think there’s anyone here that would argue that spreading democracy is a bad idea or a bad foreign policy goal. We’re just very suspicious, based on our readings of Naomi Klein and John Perkins and others, that U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades has had anything whatsoever to do with actully spreading democracy. We talk democracy and freedom while supporting corrupt, rightist, free-market-friendly despotic regimes who are anything but free and democratic, and then pat ourselves on the back for being so generous to the rest of the world.
And we don’t talk about this in the mainstream media, because the mainstream media is owned and operated by the same corporations who benefit from the corrupt regimes we support.
Personally, I believe the United States should support democracy, both domestically and internationally – we just have to be smart and fair about it. We should be helping forster conditions that support civil society and good governance and reduced corruption. We shouldn’t, however, be interfering in elections or throwing support to particular parties.
If we really want to be a beacon of democracy, we need to not be hypocrites, only supporting democracy as long as the “right people” get elected.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pmAs the friendship of the Clinton’s and Obama started while he was an Organizer with no attention to Politics and no Media attention. Yes Obama ran for the House of Reps. and lost. He called his friends the Clintons as the seat for the Senate opened. That information has been lost by the Media to the public because the smears are better reading. Most only know Obama as Senator but those from Chicago know it all. The fact that he has been giving out food on Thanksgiving was new to most but he’s been doing it for many many years.
Dionne and others so upset they are just throwing anything out there. Notice how not one question or complaint was made about idiot Bush for 8 years while he broke every law and committed chaos around the world. Now Obama hasn’t even been sworn in as President as this Republican paid Journalist are lying/spinning/and creating stories that but Americans in fear. The surprise will come when Obama/Biden succeed and Republicans are still trying to figure out how Obama won.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pmWitch1 Says:
Isn’t it about time we stop treating our own like they are troll’s just because they offer up a diffrent opinion…”
upright left Says:
And how many times does this question have to be posed by a lib before you all acknowledge that the far left is just like the far right in that regard? ;)
Well, if you want to defend shit like this as an opinion then I guess I have a problem as it sounds distinctly like an attack on everything I have been working for:
That’s this progressive’s opinion.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmI like that. Campaign promises = fiction. Yep.
Also, let’s take a look at the constitution to see if HRC is even eligible to be Secretary of State.
Article I, Section 6:
In other words, if the salary was increased for a Cabinet position while a Senator or Congressman was in office, that Senator or Congressman cannot be appointed to that office. Hillary Clinton cannot legally be the Secretary of State since the salary was increased while Clinton was in the Senate.
And, Obama has stated that he admires George H. W. Bush.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’m personally tired of the so called progressives who supported 3rd party nader in 2000. They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m tired of the chicken little doomdayers like kay and freeman and tokin liberal who claim to be progressives yet disparage every person who comes to power, this time before they even take office. You know the ones who said Clinton and Gore were a disaster and voted for nader……
I’m tired of them saying democrats are just like republicans. They are not.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pmSo, we should just support the president (and our troops) and shut up?
November 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Ok, why is that no one GETS IT that Obama is going to be the one making policy. He will listen to what Gates and Scrowcroft have to say along with a lot of his other policy advisers. But he will be making the decisions and until such time as he makes a decision I disagree with, I am supporting Obama. To my mind he hired these people because they have knowledge he needs and because having Gates in office will give the military transition a better chance of not imploding.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
_____________
It’s not that we don’t get it. We get that Obama will be the President and he’ll be the one making policy. We get that he wants to surround himself with people who don’t necessarily agree with him and will debate him on some issues. We get that a lot of the old Clintonites, as well as people like Bob Gates, have valuable institutional knowledge that will be necessary to ensure a smooth transition.
That doesn’t mean that we can’t still have legitimate concerns, and that we shouldn’t voice our opinions or objections to certain people Obama is being advised by and is selecting for White House and cabinet posts. We objected to the appointment of John Brennan as Director of National Intelligence, with very good reason, and his name was eventually withdrawn.
The way I see it, at this stage in his Presidency, Obama IS making policy decisions. Selecting personnel to head executive agencies and interdepartmental tasks IS as much a policy decision as proposing a bill or drafting an executive order. The fact that he’s not sworn in yet is irrelevant. The inauguration is a technicality. January 20th is just when Obama gets the keys to the White House – the transition, and the Obama Presidency, began on November 5th. I see absolutely nothing wrong with fair criticism at this stage.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pmwith all due respect, there are many who would challenge the legitimacy of that statement, simply based on how the policies are spun and positioned to americans. in other words, what is presented as “spreading democracy” and what is actually the true aim of our foreign policies are two very, very different things. liberating iraq from the hands of a despot (that we put in power in the first place, incidentally) and invading a country for its oil are diametrically opposed realities. and while i know that the situation is far more complicated than “how did our oil get under their sand?” there are many other ways in which america benefits through middle east hegemony.
our foreign policies created 9/11… and our domestic policies (including a corporate-controlled press and a muzzled population) leave the door open for another 9/11.
i believe that we are far from completing our long term agenda goals in the middle east… and president-elect obama does little to instill confidence (in my heart and mind) that that agenda will change. i also balk at his economic “solutions” and feel that the recent crisis and ensuing bailout constitute the largest re-concentration of wealth in world history.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pmNo you are not, what you are is a complete and utter fool.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
just what flavor is that Kool-Aid?
November 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pmBill O’Reilly says shut up and support the president!
And I love this about strangling them with diplomacy. Obama says that sounds great.
Bill O is lovin some Obama
See. Bill O is a realist.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmwearechange Says:
our foreign policies created 9/11… and our domestic policies (including a corporate-controlled press and a muzzled population) leave the door open for another 9/11.
Don’t forget the huge amount of very easily obtainable weapons you have. The only way to be sure that nothing happens in the USA like it just happened in Mumbai, India, is for the government to spy on each and every one of the US population.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pmAlejandro Says:
Article I, Section 6:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
In other words, if the salary was increased for a Cabinet position while a Senator or Congressman was in office, that Senator or Congressman cannot be appointed to that office. Hillary Clinton cannot legally be the Secretary of State since the salary was increased while Clinton was in the Senate.
Damn, Alejandro, did you pick up on this all by yourself or is it out there, somewhere?
It sure seems like she would not be eligible to serve…I would think Obama, as a Professor of Constitutional Law, would be aware of this. It can’t just be ignored, can it?
November 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pmIf they follow this pesky Article of the Constitution, that means John Kerry would be out, too. Hello, Bill Richardson?
November 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pmLuis M Says:
Don’t forget the huge amount of very easily obtainable weapons you have. The only way to be sure that nothing happens in the USA like it just happened in Mumbai, India, is for the government to spy on each and every one of the US population.
while the incidents in mumbai may constitute true acts of terrorism, there’s a lot of evidence that indicates that 9/11 was far, far more complex than “we were attacked because they hate our freedoms”… and that the alleged hijackers a.) are not who we are lead to believe they were (and in some cases they’re still alive) and b.) funded by interesting parties. the truth is is that this country NEEDED 9/11 in order to further all the agenda items we’ve been witness to these past 7 years. there would be no FISA, no patriot act, no homeland security act, and no war in iraq or afghanistan without 9/11.
so luis, you’re sideways NRA-esque argument for revoking our civil liberties is rather weak… especially considering ben franklin’s insight that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
November 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pmThat argument holds as much water as – since Bush II had a lot of ex Bush I and Reagan folk in his cabinet, you couldn’t tell him from Bush I and Reagan.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pmI see that the Civil War that usually follows a Revolutionary War has already begun.
That didn’t take long.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pmturd needs to stfu
November 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
If they follow this pesky Article of the Constitution, that means John Kerry would be out, too. Hello, Bill Richardson?
That’s an interesting situation. The last time cabinet members pay was increased was 2004 by Bush’s executive order. Would that abrogate the section of the constitution you quoted secondarily is that the normal way cabinet members get pay increases. I guess the purpose was to preclude voting a raise to a job you thought you where getting
November 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pmkonchster Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi at Night Says:
If they follow this pesky Article of the Constitution, that means John Kerry would be out, too. Hello, Bill Richardson?
That’s an interesting situation. The last time cabinet members pay was increased was 2004 by Bush’s executive order. Would that abrogate the section of the constitution you quoted secondarily is that the normal way cabinet members get pay increases. I guess the purpose was to preclude voting a raise to a job you thought you where getting
Ah! Well, that would certainly be a loophole…are cabinet positions normally given raises by Executive Order? It seems clear the intent was that a Senator should not have a pecuinary interest in a cabinet post they might later hold. The actual article doesn’t say anything about an Executive Order exception, though I am not sure what the Framers foresaw as the role of ExOs when they wrote the Constitution.
A very interesting situation – why has no one in the MSM said anything about it? Someone alert Tweety, he hates Hillary plenty.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pmthere would be no FISA, no patriot act, no homeland security act, and no war in iraq or afghanistan without 9/11.
Oh, come on…
You always have angry and violent Granadians. :)
November 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pmNo, I saw it on a couple blogs a few days ago.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pmAt the very least it raises an interesting avenue of inquiry. As pointed out as a professor of constitutional law you would think Obama would have covered it
Kudos to Alejandro on that pick up
screw up the italic
November 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pmBut it also says “HE” with respect to the Senator or Representative, so maybe it technically doesn’t apply to Hillary. :)
November 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pmlos granadians
November 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Ah! Well, that would certainly be a loophole…are cabinet positions normally given raises by Executive Order? It seems clear the intent was that a Senator should not have a pecuinary interest in a cabinet post they might later hold. The actual article doesn’t say anything about an Executive Order exception, though I am not sure what the Framers foresaw as the role of ExOs when they wrote the Constitution.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
_________
This would seem to make it impossible for any current sitting Senator to take any Cabinet post, since salaries were last raised in 2007.
Oh, well. I guess Hillary’s going to stay in the Senate for a bit, unless they try and argue that the Secretary of State is a Foreign Service post rather than a Civil Service post. Though that’d be quite a tortured loophole.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pmSomething seriously rotten about this whole notion……I don’t believe it.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pmwearechange Says:
so luis, you’re sideways NRA-esque argument for revoking our civil liberties is rather weak… especially considering ben franklin’s insight that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I agree completely. I wasn’t arguing in favor of removing any civil liberties, but instead pointing out that complete security can only be obtained at the price of losing said liberties. Perhaps I didn’t put it as clearly as Mr. Franklin, but the idea is still the same.
But my point remains: it’s way too easy to obtain weapons in the USA. Which I don’t like since it also makes it too easy for those weapons to cross the border into my own country, ending up in the hands of criminals, so you could say I’m being a bit selfish in my argumentation.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm______
Fred Says:
Witch1 Says:
Isn’t it about time we stop treating our own like they are troll’s just because they offer up a diffrent opinion…”
upright left Says:
And how many times does this question have to be posed by a lib before you all acknowledge that the far left is just like the far right in that regard? ;)
I’m personally tired of the so called progressives who supported 3rd party nader in 2000. They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m tired of the chicken little doomdayers like kay and freeman and tokin liberal who claim to be progressives yet disparage every person who comes to power, this time before they even take office. You know the ones who said Clinton and Gore were a disaster and voted for nader……
I’m tired of them saying democrats are just like republicans. They are not.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
______
Politicians are politicians and partisans are partisans. Corruption didn’t begin with the modern conservative movement and it won’t end with it.
I’m a moderate and I think Obama has made good choices in his appointments. You can’t deny the connections that they have, however. Those who disagree with the appointments on those grounds are only doing the same things liberals have done the last eight years. Only now the shoe is on the other foot, so you are willing to overlook those issues. With the loss of a common enemy, your differences appear and tolerance, even for other libs, falls by the wayside. (Hence, repeated lib pleas to stop “acting like the right wing trolls.”) People are slamming those with whom they agree on virtually everything, simply because of a disagreement on one issue.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:01 pmupright left Says:
Politicians are politicians and partisans are partisans. Corruption didn’t begin with the modern conservative movement and it won’t end with it.
I’m a moderate and I think Obama has made good choices in his appointments. You can’t deny the connections that they have, however. Those who disagree with the appointments on those grounds are only doing the same things liberals have done the last eight years. Only now the shoe is on the other foot, so you are willing to overlook those issues. With the loss of a common enemy, your differences appear and tolerance, even for other libs, falls by the wayside. (Hence, repeated lib pleas to stop “acting like the right wing trolls.”) People are slamming those with whom they agree on virtually everything, simply because of a disagreement on one issue.
Very well said. It is the way of things. Revolutions eat their own children first. It has always been so.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pmBush doesn’t need to issue a de jure pardon for his accomplices, because Obama has already issued a de facto pardon. The new president will not pursue war and human rights criminals because that would implicate members of his new team, plus the husband of his secretary of state.
Bill Clinton’s administration invented “extraordinary rendition,” more prosaically known as kidnapping, forced disappearance, conspiracy to violate human rights and torture by proxy.
Any investigation, and subsequent prosecutions, cannot rely on a de facto statute of limitations for offenses prior to 20 January 2001, so Obama will scuttle the whole concepts of rule of law, accountability and respect for human rights. While he might halt the outrages, he will neither regain the respect of the world and the tolerance of our potential enemies by prosecuting the guilty, nor deter future wrongdoing.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pmWeird with a beard…
November 28th, 2008 at 11:24 pmtypical polititian… win with a leftist discourse but governs with from the right wing.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:56 pmI agree with this article, Obama’s keeping of the WAR CRIMINAL Gates is nothing but ‘Saty the course’…
The moderate flag is a false one. We are all moderates unless we are extremists….
The kind of corruption we are seeing now is not new and it belongs to the right exclusivly. It happens every time they obtain the power to influence our economy.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:14 amThe left has always had a few bad apples but they were indiviual criminals. You will find no historical example of leftists conspiring to lower taxes and de-regulate corporations, destroy unions or anything similar as the right has most assuridly done.
They are now paying the price….again I might add for the same damage that they did under hoover and raygun/bush just for two examples…..do I need to include todays economy ushered in by bush’s tax cuts and deregulation that was touted to be bringing us an era of prosperity……I’m still waiting.
The right is a thugary, plain and simple. Their motives are not for the good of the country. It is based entirely on greed and class warfare.
Bottom line. Don’t try to compare corruption of the left with that of the right. You will lose if you want to make it seem like the left is as bad as the right.
There is of course a very good and logical reason for that. The right is about individual greed and exclusion of those that don’t belong to the club.
The left is the opposition, always sticking up for the true average American…..sorry ma’am, just the facts. Does the left fail to live up to that legacy…..obviously it does at times.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:15 amThere are those moments when mankind has moved forward and it has not been the result of a right wing idiology, it has been the result of efforts of good people on the left.
Social security, minimum wage, unions, public schools, civil rights……I’m a little angry right now so I can’t think of any more at the moment but they are there…..FDA, EPA, etc. these all came from the left……not the right.
The whole world gained from our progressive actions until the right gets power and undermines it once again.
Barak Obama has shown himself to be a man of true vision, a real leader. I know many of you have never really experienced that……bush certainly was no example, but Obama has the qualities to move us forward constructivly.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:19 amGroaning and moaning about who Obama has selected will not change anything….he has the opportunity and you don’t get the chance to tell him how to go about it anymore…….that’s what elections are for…..you will have your chance again and by then you will know what kind of man Barak Obama is.
So, at this point, I see you as being supportive of something we all agree we want and need…..to move forward, or you were never on board for that and want something that is not realistically possible at the present time, just like you did when you said dems and reps are the same in 2000 and supported nader……I have not forgiven you for that.
So you guys just go ahead and nit pick and pretend that nothing has changed while Obama moves us forward despite the crybabies that have obviously forgotten what we just went through and were we are as a result of it.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:20 amJust a statement…..means nothing without facts. You could be just any liar that you might mean on the street. Got a credible link or any facts to back this up? I didn’t think so.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:23 amFred, I have no desire to compare the corruption of the left and the right. Individual corruption or a group effort, I find it all disgusting. You are correct that the far right tends to be greedy. Unfortunately, you are wrong about Dems always being “for the average guy.” Sometimes they are just out for themselves and the average guy is a means to an end. And Obama disagrees with your assessment of Bush:
“So Democratic audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don’t consider George Bush a bad man, and that I assume he and members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country.”
Barack Obama
My defense of those who criticize Obama’s selections doesn’t mean that I disapprove of them. I voted for Obama, even though I disagree with him on some issues, and I think he has made good choices in his appointments. You are absolutely right that those who are criticizing aren’t going to change anything. That’s not their point. The point is that this is a liberal site, yet liberals are suddenly turning on those with whom they agree on almost everything simply because they express their disagreement with Obama’s appointments. It’s the hypocrisy of saying that the right is all about suppressing dissent and following along while the left encourages debate. Telling those who disagree with you about the appointments to STFU is hardly considered debate or being tolerant.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:27 amupright left Says:
Fred, I have no desire to compare the corruption of the left and the right. Individual corruption or a group effort, I find it all disgusting. You are correct that the far right tends to be greedy. Unfortunately, you are wrong about Dems always being “for the average guy.” Sometimes they are just out for themselves and the average guy is a means to an end.
The far right also seems to think the Constitution (and international treaties)can be abrogated at a whim, something that doesn’t have a democratic parallel.
Watergate. Iran/Contra. Invasion of a sovereign nation. Torture and humiliation of captured prisoners. All, acts sanctioned, and carried out by conservatives.
You’d have to go back to the Bay of Pigs for a parallel, and even that one was never carried out.
It’s a false equivalence you offer.
Individual democrats have occasionally been caught enriching themselves, or their families – but at no time have democrats ever been caught at institutionalized criminality such as the republicans, and Watergate, Iran/Contra, or the depredations of the Bush administration’s, “War on Terror.”
November 29th, 2008 at 9:11 amAbleCluster should have gotten here by now…
November 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am______
barfly Says:
Individual democrats have occasionally been caught enriching themselves, or their families – but at no time have democrats ever been caught at institutionalized criminality such as the republicans, and Watergate, Iran/Contra, or the depredations of the Bush administration’s, “War on Terror.”
November 29th, 2008 at 9:11 am
______
As I told Fred, I make no defense for the misdeeds of the right. I simply responded to this post:
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
Witch1 Says:
Isn’t it about time we stop treating our own like they are troll’s just because they offer up a diffrent opinion…”
upright left Says:
And how many times does this question have to be posed by a lib before you all acknowledge that the far left is just like the far right in that regard? ;)
I’m personally tired of the so called progressives who supported 3rd party nader in 2000. They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m tired of the chicken little doomdayers like kay and freeman and tokin liberal who claim to be progressives yet disparage every person who comes to power, this time before they even take office. You know the ones who said Clinton and Gore were a disaster and voted for nader……
I’m tired of them saying democrats are just like republicans. They are not.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
______
Some of Obama’s appointments have associations that some libs find troubling, and truth be told, that most would have used to slam a conservative. Now that it is a Dem making those appointments, those who are critical are no longer following the accepted line and are being slammed for their dissent. Most, if not all, politicians have connections to corporations and lobbyists, some more than others. That was the point of the comment that politicians are politicians. Now, those with such connections are being excused by libs because Obama needs experienced people. I’m not criticizing Obama. I think he has made good choices. I understand that it is how it is and he has to work with it. The problem is the hypocrisy of falsely claiming to accept dissent and slamming the other party for something you are willing to accept in your own
November 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am