Hear This Barack --no Bush, no Baker, no Corporate War Maker. We've Had Enough!

Some men sacrificed their sons for their nation. George Herbert Walker Bush sacrificed his nation for his son.

In a July 15th appearance on CNN's Larry King Live, Barack Obama announced that as President he would seek the foreign policy counsel of former President Bill Clinton, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, former Bush Sr. Secretary of State, James Baker, former Bush Sr. National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, and former George W. Bush Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Below are the video and text of Obama's pronouncement:

King: "How will you utilize the talents of President Clinton?"

Obama: "As you know, Bill Clinton's one of the smartest people out here and certainly one of the most brilliant political minds we have. He's got extraordinary relationships all across the globe and so I want him as a advisor and I would want him to be involved in implementing strategies on a range of issues -- so he's an enormous resource as all former presidents are. I mean I've said this before. I think on the foreign policy front George Bush, Sr. has a lot of wisdom to impart and his foreign policy team -- people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell are extraordinary thinkers. So I think you want to utilize all the talents out here and part of what I'm interested in is bringing that tradition of bipartisanship to our foreign policy back to Washington."

If Barack Obama is to be the "change we can believe in," how can he rely on the counsel of those who represented previous failed administrations and failed policies in his own administration? In particular, George Herbert Walker Bush, whose selfish need to perpetuate his dynasty has caused America irreparable harm. He bestowed upon this nation (and the world) his unworthy son, George W. Bush, whose inadequacies he had known. He knew well the moral and intellectual frailties of his son. He knew he lacked scholarship and statesmanship and experience in foreign affairs. He knew he lacked tact and maturity. He knew he lacked the intellectual curiosity, moral authority, self-control, clarity, judgment, vision, patience, oratory skills and wisdom to be president -- yet he cheered him on.

Where others may have speculated about the challenges of being President, George Herbert Walker Bush knew them intimately, having been 1 of just 43 men to ever hold the job. Still, with full understanding of the rigors of the office, he sanctioned the candidacy of his son, whom he knew was unfit. He could have interceded for the sake of his nation to dissuade his son's campaign, but he did not. Instead the former President lauded his son and lent him credibility -- thrusting him forward to succeed. Shame on this selfish, dynastic and unpatriotic father for the damage he has done.

One would think that Barack Obama, in his quest for "change," would understand that the Bushes and the loyalists from their administrations should no longer serve our government. Surprisingly, Senator Obama does not. Rather than taking the reins and leading a Bush-free nation, Obama plans to involve Bush cronies James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell in his own administration. Baker, former Secretary of State to George Herbert Walker Bush, was the architect of George W's theft of the 2000 election. General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State to George W. Bush, presented a false case for war before the United Nations. He is the most egregious of all Bush enablers and holds a greater responsibility for the Iraq war and the resultant deaths of Americans and Iraqis than anyone other than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

There have been testimonies from Powell's colleagues, including his former Chief of Staff, Col. Larry Wilkerson, that prior to making his United Nations speech, Powell was skeptical of the "facts" he'd be presenting. Yet he presented them anyway. Were he a man of courage and character, he would never have made claims for which he had doubts. His speech to the United Nations was of monumental importance, and laid the groundwork through false evidence for the Iraq war. Powell has expressed his regrets since the lies in his speech were revealed. But ignorance is not an excuse and regret doesn't guarantee forgiveness -- especially when projections of as many as one million lives have been lost as a result of the war.

As for Bill Clinton -- Senator Obama stated that:

"He's [Bill Clinton's] got extraordinary relationships all across the globe and so I want him as an advisor."

Bill Clinton does have extraordinary global connections. Unfortunately, they are mostly corporate, since giant corporations are the core of his organization, the Clinton Global Initiative. Like Bush Sr., Baker and Powell, Clinton represents failed policies. He instituted NAFTA. He didn't produce a healthcare program. He ended the AFDC program (Aid To Families With Dependent Children) that assisted poor families with children. When Bill Clinton ended welfare in 1996, I was working with Community Based Organizations throughout Los Angeles. I spent hours in meetings grappling with the plight of poor mothers who were thrown into minimum wage jobs with no childcare. Now, a dozen years later, I believe that the high numbers of unwed teen parents, school dropouts, drug abusers and prison inmates correlate directly with the thousands of children who raised themselves alone thanks to Clinton's legislation. His political expediency and capitulation to then Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, paved the way for today's burgeoning prison industrial complex, failed education system, and even the childhood obesity Clinton is determined to correct. Without mothers to prepare home meals, children subsisted on fast food and junk food with little nutrition. (I refer you to Robert Scheer's excellent analysis of how Clinton ended welfare - but failed to end poverty).

Certainly Bill Clinton doesn't offer the "change we can believe in." Nor does George Herbert Walker Bush -- a man whose DNA has fractured this nation. Doesn't Obama realize Americans have had enough of Bush power, profit and privatization? We are done! The only places most Americans want to see Bushes and their cronies is in maximum security prisons.

Interesting that presumptive nominee Obama failed to mention former President Jimmy Carter as a potential advisor -- considering that Carter is globally respected as a humanitarian and advocate for human rights. But ever since the publication of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which is critical of Israel, Carter has garnered animosity from AIPAC - the powerful Israeli lobby. Apparently in the administration of Barack Obama, only AIPAC approved advisors are desired.

Obama's pandering is obvious. He's pandering to Republicans by naming Republican advisors. He's pandering to AIPAC by ignoring Jimmy Carter. Pandering is not the change we can believe in!

If Barack Obama is to be the "change we can believe in, he needs to choose associates and advisors who represent that change. George Bush Sr., James Baker and Colin Powell represent failed policies and failed judgement. Americans have had their fill of these. Americans want change!

Obama needs to listen. no Bush, no Baker, no corporate war maker. If Obama is "the change we can believe in" - he has to stand for change!!

Comments

[LeftLeanWing]

If Barack Obama is to be the "change we can believe in," how can he rely on the counsel of those who represented previous failed administrations and failed policies in his own administration? ....

I respectfully disagree .....

The same way Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity or Stephen Hawkings is developing his Unification Theory; they both studied with professor of the existing sciences of Physics and Mathematics and Chemistry. They didn't study with some NuevoProfessors to imagine and develop something new and different..

Change doesn't necessarily mean something new made with all new ingrediants. It means something new by Obama selecting or requesting counsel from others regardless of their respective political stripes but for his respect, admiration and trust in their INDIVIDUAL judgements.

This argument has been made over and over with the implication that "How can it be new when we recognize some of the same old faces?"

The Change is that he will not treat all issues as ideological battles.

[LindaMilazzo]

Thanks for your comment, LeftLean -

I agree with you that "change" need not mean all new ingredients. However, over the past 28 years - since the Reagan/Bush administration - this nation has suffered a decline in humanity and social justice and a surge in corporate greed and selfishness. Surely in a nation of 300 million there are NEW advisors to choose from who present a NEW more effective paradigm.

The proposition that pre-existing long time advisors are a necessity to understand foreign or domestic policy is unrealistic. It's the same thinking that keeps low performing, self-centered incumbents in office. We have PLENTY of skilled advisors available who have NEVER served a Reagan, a Bush, a Clinton or a Bush - in that Presidential order. It's time we tap into inspired fresh talent and send the old failed paradigm on its way.

[eshalom]

Obama has no choice but to rely on advisors from previous administrations. The Democratic party began its primary with six candidates; five of whom were more experienced than Barack Obama and unlike Obama were proven leaders. The Democratic party elite handed the nomination to Obama whose following rivals those of Elvis Presley and the early Beatles. And you have to give BO credit.He does know how to convert a political rally instantaneously into a a rowdy religious revival meeting. Obama borrowed JFK's speech writer, Ted Sorenson, to complement his own team. Read from a teleprompter, his cliche-filled speeches are delivered in cadences borrowed from MLK,Jr. and JFK. Yes, he does know how to work a crowd. The Democrats selected,not elected, a very clever poltiician, trained in the corrupt methods of Old Chicago. He will outdo Dubya as he's more skilled in the political arts, but the euphoric masses who believe Obama is going to transform the world are headed for even further disillusionment.

Obama is a man who has already demonstrated on several occasions that he will do anything - anything - it takes to win an election.

Now his high-minded left-wing followers are already caving and making excuses for him as in - the end justifies the means.

[SeanGardner]

"The Democratic party elite handed the nomination to Obama"

What the hell are you talking about? "Handed the nomination" to Obama?

So Obama's investment in technology to revolutionize internet fundraising didin't help? So Obama's coalition of multi-cultural, multi-ethinic, multi-racial voters didin't help? So Obama's incredible ground game with millions of volunteers didin't help? So Obama's tireless work ethic in crucial caucus states that Hillary and everyone else overlooked didin't work? I beg your pardon, but the party didin't hand Barack Obama a damn thing. He worked his butt with a vaunted, unparalled "50 State Strategy" that netted him 36 contest victories during primaries.

Obama was not supposed to be where he is. Hillary made 5 crucial mistakes, as documented by TIME MAGAZINE, and Obama made 5 auspicious decisions, as documented by ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Also, above you wrote this line: "Obama is a man who has already demonstrated on several occasions that he will do anything - anything - it takes to win an election." That's an outrageous claim. But please, please, give me some concrete examples.

[eshalom]

Check out Obama's record in Illinois; he managed to eliminate all of his opponents on the ballot in one election, and his campaign did their best to force Hillary Clinton out of the primary from the day after he won in Iowa. But he's had the media in the palm of his hand since day one, and they've lapped up every one of his deceitful claims about his own record. He presented himself as above the old politics and now he and his "high-minded" supporters make excuses for his blatant flip-flops since the primary on every major issue: campaign financing, FISA, the death penalty, gun control - you name it. But the Internet flock that funded Obama to his primary "win" twists and turns behind their idol, making excuses for him and rationalizing his bad faith. You are the same people who lied, slandered, and smeared Hillary Clinton relentlessly throughout the primary, and you're all still feeling threatened because as ignorant as you seem most days, at some level you recognize that she's ten times better qualified than Barack Obama to be president.

By the way, he isn't even a good speaker, regardless of what his lemming-like followers claim. He reads those prepared cliche-filled speeches from a teleprompter in the borrowed cadences of JFK, MLK, Jr., and popular evangelical preachers. Actually, he doesn't give speeches, he preaches. He wouldn't pass a Toastmasters session. If anything, Obama is a second-rate actor who enjoys the limelight.

[SeanGardner]

Above you wrote that "as President (Obama) would seek the foreign policy counsel" of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., James Baker, and Bill Clinton, etc. But then just four paragraphs later, you make it seem as though Obama wants them to "serve" in his administration. He never said that. He said he would seek their counsel and advice on foreign policy. He is showing deference.

Obama knows that each president has had foreign policy successes. For instance, four years ago, President Bush signed into law a bill that would severely punish American citizens who go to foreign countries and engage in pedophilia. That represented a great foreign policy victory.

Lastly, you wrote this: "He's pandering to Republicans by naming Republican advisors." And that's bad? In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked quite well with Republicans, and in the U.S. Senate he has worked with Republicans like Sen. Lugar, Sen. Coburn, and Sen. Brownback on groundbreaking legislation. So what's wrong with working with Republican advisors like Sen. Chuck Hagel and Susan Eisenhower, great-granddaughter of President Eisenhower? Not a damn thing. To win in November, Obama will not only need his BLUE STATE credentials, but he will also need to trumpet his long-standing RED STATE credibility.

He is running for The President of America. Not..."The President of Blue America".

And be careful about accusing someone of "pandering" because as you know, one can say you're "pandering" to progressives with this alarmist post...

[zjr909]

Thank you for this article. It's the most sensible advice I've seen given to Senator Obama. Unfortunately, your advice will not be heeded. The powers that be in the Democratic party clearly see the world and particularly the nation the same way the Republicans do: everything for the corporate moguls, nothing for the people who pay for it all. Voting in America has been an exercise in futility and absurdity for quite some time now. Since our elected leaders no longer represent us, why keep up the charade? Why keep voting? As long as we hold our noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils" we thereby continue giving our consent to be governed. Perhaps it time to withdraw that consent, so that the essential nature of our "democracy" can be seen for what it is. A vote is a terrible thing to waste; and we waste it every time we give it away for free.

[MPeter]

"Obama needs to listen. no Bush, no Baker, no corporate war maker. If Obama is "the change we can believe in" - he has to stand for change!!" Bang-on. I completely agree. I highly doubt thet Obama will bring them in. His reference to them is a pre-emptive strike to prevent sabotage from these men. They have considerable influence in the old American political arrangement and they can do a lot of damage to his campaign. Still, you make a great argument.