Anti-War Activists Worried Obama Betraying Them With Hawkish Cabinet

LA Times:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

Read the whole story: LA Times

Comments

[Semper]

A hawkish cabinet neutralizes the Republican Right. They can't go left and it makes it very hard for them to move against Obama. Remember, Obama needs more than 4 years to govern. At re election time the votes must stay with Obama and he has to ge more Democrats elected. The Man is just plain brilliant

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

dont worry, you'll be back in 2012 so stop crying

[nogimmicks]

He appointed Emmanuel as his CoS, he kept the ultra hawk Lieberman to cover up the crimes of the past and keep pushing the destructive agenda. So far Obama did nothing to honor the movement that put him in power. Even worse he moved in the opposite direction. Perhaps Hillary was right by saying that he was just milking his implied "anti-war" position.

[sepiasiren]

he wasn't anti-war he was anti-stupid war...there are still threats people--Don't give the repugs ammunition on the concept that we have no idea of how to defend this country...

[Mugzi]

This is so true! O has diplomacy which we have not seen in the past 8 years. That does not mean we roll over, but we will actually converse with others. It's a good thing!!!

[PuffDragon]

Wake up.

America has a govenment of followers. Not of leaders. They follow the money. They follow power. American money is in oil, pharmaceuticals, and war machines.

Look around. Open your eyes. Who is winning the war? The profiteers are. Who is benefiting from our healthcare system? The pharmaceutical companies. Who reported the greatest profits in history last month? The oil companies.

Wake up. No single politician can change this system. We The People need to get up off our fat, beer-soaked asses and get active -- stop electing "obamas" to fix everything for us. It ain't gonna happen.

Wake up.

[hillpill]

You are absolutely correct.

[SOLERSO68]

Oh someone is still cranky about hillary. and trolls. Hillary is not president. Hillary will have to carry out Pres. Obamas policies. Iraq is trying to finish itself. They have their own government now that want us to leave. All we have to do is exit in an orderly fashion. Afgahnistan needs to become mainly a UN problem, pronto. I can think of no one better to make that happen than HC.

[Coinyer101]

cnn just reporting that hillary will be officially offered SOS after thanksgiving. i guess the unapologetic war supporter will be handling the diplomacy in iraq and iran. wasn't that one of the few distinguishing factors between their campaigns? oh well, change doesn't come easy. if at all......

[amoment]

Although, I am no big fan of Hillary, I think appointing her secretary of state is a sure fire way of ending the war. First, she wants to run in 2012, right? What a feather in her cap if she negotiates our way out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This way, Hillary and Barack get to campaign for another 4 years (both loved the intensity) and it will be up the people to decide which one really ended the war.

[amacd]

Here's the best comment I've seen on this hopeless flip flop:

Editorial director of Antiwar.com Justin Raimondo says that “the likely appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state should disabuse even the most brain-dead of Obama’s supporters that we won’t be seeing much change in American foreign policy. If I were an Iranian, I’d start digging a bomb shelter.”

[Coinyer101]

now we get 'hillary change', after all.

[sepiasiren]

She is only SOS--not the president--good lord!

[Sparty1]

:(

[GabrielXL]

All of this only makes sense of one believes that Obama is not his own man. I think he made that clear when he was campaigning and the question was asked concerning what he'd do if his commanding generals told him that his mandate couldn't be met in regards to withdrawing troops. He made it clear in his response that as Commander in Chief, he would set the mandate [whatever it is] and his generals would advise him on how to make that happen. I think that says plenty about "who's commanding whom". If people believe that Emanuel, Clinton or anyone else is going to tell Obama what he's going to do, you should probably consider thinking again. Remember the platform he ran on. He said he'd be responsible to his constituency. That is John and Jane Q. Public. Not lobbyists, special interests or folks with an agenda.

How soon we forget.

[Jaradan]

Let's hope they weren't just campaign promises...

What people are forgetting is that Obama is the boss, which means he can FIRE ANYONE HE'S HIRED at any time for any reason. Ignoring your boss' demands is certainly grounds for dismissal.

[wrenny]

Interesting article - Agents of Change or Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites

[Coinyer101]

well, we'll either get change or not. election's over. if i dont see any change ,i'll go back to never voting .

[Fongenie]

Change comes in many ways. Obviously, there are a good number of supporters who don't understand that.

[wrenny]

I think it'll be okay - I just thought the article had a lot of food for thought. The person at the helm is strong, intelligent, and astute - he won't be run by his staff and advisors. And if there's a lot of discontent in the public, I think he'll respond.

[texasaggie]

It would appear that the "hero worship" Mr Martin mentioned in the LA Times piece above is far from fanciful. Huffington Post comments essentially supporting Bush foreign policy? And make no mistake about it; we will continue along this murderous, rapacious path in the Obama administration to our own detriment. Not that the president is really much more than a figure head any longer, but, wow; that's what I call a powerful cult of personality! It's time to go back to reading and discussing at informatio­nclearingh­ouse.info . On the other hand, yeah, I voted for Obama too. What do you do? Enjoy watching Rome burn, people. Maybe we can light a peace pipe with the embers.

[Sparty1]

Yeah right. You voted for Obama. I don't think anyone on here that supported Obama would ever, no matter how minute, support ANY Bush foreign policy. Now we may be terribly disappointed by any Hillary Clinton appointment, which I don't believe is going to happen, but there must be a reason for this if it turns out to be true.

I don't agree with the 'hero worship' tag with regards to Obama supporters. No one was yelling from the rafters about 'hero worship' with all of the Bushies that couldn't stand an ounce of criticism for their guy.

Backwards B McCain supporter, is that you?

[texasaggie]

Nope, no closet Republican here. The point is that there are no substantive differences between neo-liberal and neocon foreign policy. And though the majority of the posters here are, thankfully, questioning the Obama choices every step of the way, there are others who have plainly professed their absolute trust in the man. That's simply silly and is tantamount to "hero worship," and it does closely resemble, as you put it well, the "Bushies that couldn't stand an ounce of criticism for their guy." Much of what is now being defended would be ridiculed were Bush making the same choices. Granted, Obama has not actually taken office, but there is probably going to be a great deal of disappointment amongst liberals when we see the continuity of "Bush" policy, both foreign and domestic.

[htd2009]

It's called BALANCE. Not a hemp convention. Obama knows what he's doing. Cool yer jets...

[Fongenie]

Thank you.

[Coinyer101]

'hemp' convention? presumptious, considering many of the 'anti-war in iraq' , barack supporters, are veterans of that disaster. 16 month pull-out ,+/- a few months, or he'll never get re-elected.

[Mugzi]

Exactly!!! "Change" comes in many forms. Personally, the Clinton years weren't bad...peace and prosperity - I can go for that! It took 8 years to get us in this mess, solving all the problems will not happen overnight, unfortunately. I'm amazed, O hasn't even been sworn into office yet and yes, we only have 1 Prez at a time..."cool yer jets"!

[unite4change]

Why are people getting so upset when O doesn't take office until January 20, 2009.

[Coinyer101]

because many of his initial picks for his cabinet posts and administration are not agents of change, but more of the same. hillary? gates? holder? imanuel? the only good picks are from his campaign team.

[amoment]

I think it is unfair to talk so soon about no change based on cabinet/staff selections.
Obama is the agent of change and what that means is that he is the driving force to change. He has not been sworn in, yet, and people are expecting change. Incredible.

[weatherwaxx]

Bill Clinton came into DC, brought his own team, and snubbed the people who were already there. And that probably bogged his whole plan down.

Obama has the unusual ability to learn from OTHER people's mistakes. He's got to work with these people. He said -- didn't you notice? That he was going to be the President for ALL Americans.

Much as I'd like to see the country running the way it would with Dennis Kucinich in charge -- we don't have a country that intelligent and reasonable. Or a world, for that matter. Barack Obama means to get things done, adn to do that he has to work with everybody who's willing to participate. I don't envy him the task.

And ... he won't take office until January. Let's give the man time to actually get in office first?

[jazzdrummerb]

Obama never ran as an anti-war president. He said he will get us out of Iraq and expand the war in Afghanistan. He said it many many times in fact.

The far-left is going to be disappointed with Obama as they realize that he really intends to be a president for all of America, not just progressives. I'm OK with that, in fact it's why I voted for the man.

[Fongenie]

Yeah. I remember Barack saying along the lines that he wasn't necessarily against war, but that he was against a dumb war, i.e. the war in Iraq.

[Coinyer101]

i dont care anymore who he picks. as long as he puts his 16 -month plan for withdrawal into effect, immediately after taking office.

[fem56]

Obama never claimed to be an ideologue. He is practical and principled and listens to all sides. He set down the ground rules in his campaign and allowed those around him latitude within those perimeters. At least that is what it looked like to me. I assume he will expect the same from Clinton and the rest. I am sure she knows she must play by his rules. Probably why she is mulling over the decision which iss the wise thing to do.