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]

01:12 PM on 11/23/2008

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]

01:10 AM on 11/21/2008

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

[nogimmicks]

12:58 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

03:15 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

07:11 AM on 11/22/2008

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]

12:29 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

02:19 AM on 11/21/2008

You are absolutely correct.

[SOLERSO68]

11:29 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

11:00 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

11:34 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

10:20 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

11:13 PM on 11/20/2008

now we get 'hillary change', after all.

[sepiasiren]

03:16 AM on 11/21/2008

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

[Sparty1]

12:10 AM on 11/21/2008

:(

[GabrielXL]

10:05 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

02:33 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

09:55 PM on 11/20/2008

Interestin­g article - Agents of Change or Hawks, Clintonite­s and Neocons?
http://www­.democracy­now.org/20­08/11/20/a­gents_of_c­hange_or_h­awks_clint­onites

[Coinyer101]

11:25 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

12:04 AM on 11/21/2008

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

[wrenny]

01:01 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

09:52 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

12:15 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

03:54 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

09:38 PM on 11/20/2008

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

[Fongenie]

10:44 PM on 11/20/2008

Thank you.

[Coinyer101]

11:05 PM on 11/20/2008

'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.

[unite4change]

09:28 PM on 11/20/2008

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

[Coinyer101]

11:09 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

10:04 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

11:40 PM on 11/24/2008

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]

09:04 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

10:57 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

08:32 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

08:25 PM on 11/20/2008

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.