This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

[laststeamtrain]

This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on November 20, 2008, Printed on November 20, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/107666/

U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."

Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.

Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.

The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances. Among them:

<more>

http://www.alternet.org/audits/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks%2C_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/

[Bobbieo]

1. Bitch!!!Bitch!!!Bitch!!! - Almost makes me wish McCain won the election.

Then, you would really have something to bitch about.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Amen, Bobieo

How long has he been elected? A couple of weeks?

[laststeamtrain]

6. I like to think of it as criticism rather than bitching.

You know, vigilance as the price of freedom. Silence as murder. That kind of thing.

I don't know if Mr. Scahill paid the price of admission to the bitching booth but I did. I voted.

It seems to me progress lies ahead, not back. This piece captured that idea pretty well I think.

Keep on pushing.

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. We're not freepers

We are allowed to criticize our own politicians.

And remember, if they gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate, they have NO EXCUSES for continuing the bankrupt policies of the past.

In 2000 the excuse was, "We don't control anything in Washington except the Senate."

In 2002, the excuse was, "We don't control anything in Washington."

In 2004, the excuse was, "We don't have the White House."

In 2006, the excuse was, "We don't have a veto-proof majority," which is NO excuse for not blocking Bush's initiatives.

What will the excuse be in 2008?

Fucking "bipartisanship"? :puke:

[Sherman A1]

18. Agreed

You hit the nail on the head.

[Blue_Tires]

21. +1

[AmyCamus]

27. If I wanted another Clinton adinistration, I would've voted for another Clinton.

That's going to be my newest sig line.

[Two Americas]

33. absolutely

Well said Lydia Leftcoast.

I think there is a small, but very domineering faction of people within the activist community and the party who want the party to move to the right, who support conservative positions on matters of economics and power, but who are not honest about that. Instead, they portray right wing economics as inevitable and unavoidable, as practical and realistic and then smear any and all voices from the left - the majority of people here and the majority of people in the party and now the majority of people in the general public - as fringe, radical, purists, delusional and every other ad hominem attack imaginable.

Since the election, we are seeing a massive bait and switch, as the conservatives here and elsewhere within the party have escalated their attacks and pulled out all the stops in their desperate effort to thwart the will of the people and destroy and eliminate all voices from the left. Should they succeed, we will all pay a stiff price for that because it will be an extraordinary betrayal of the people at a time when more and more people are in increasingly desperate straits.

[mikita]

3. K & R

thanks for posting.

[hiley]

4. Scahill was on Democracy Now with David Corn discussing

his article and Corn's, with a different view.
The Agents of Change on Obama's Transition Team
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/11/10948_obama_tranistion_team_members_change.html
today's show is not up yet but should be soon.http://www.democracynow.org/
I do not think that knowing who all the people involved are and their pasts actions is bitching.
More like reporting.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharp_stick]

8. Are you for fucking real?

Obama is a young boy, kiss my ass dude, this is quite possibly the stupidist post I've seen in weeks and it's been weeks full of stupid posts. Asking daddy for help. I try not to call people out too much but really man, this is fucking pathetic.

Obama is probably the single most gifted "politician" of this generation. He absolutely creamed any opposition and now you have the gall to come out and pretend he's some inexperienced little puke.

[drm604]

12. Perfect response! n/t

[acmavm]

7. We really know what's making people piss and moan. It's the

very thought that HRC will be appointed to something. She could be given the White House Housekeeper's job and people would bitch.

[snake in the grass]

38. Nailed it!

Some here are as irrational about the Clintons as the Freepers. It's very disturbing. I predict that the same people will be foaming at the mouth in a year or so about how Obama let them down. It was naive to project so much onto him and now they will pay the price. While I believe that Obama was, by far, the best choice we had on election day, I was disappointed that the U.S. wasn't evolved enough to go for Kucinich. For all those pissing and moaning I say, get out there yourselves and work for change! The fight isn't over just because we have a (D) in the White House.

[hiley]

9. link to democracynow discussion

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites

[laststeamtrain]

10. Thank you.

I have it on.

Fr. Roy Bourgeois is being interviewed.

Looking forward to hearing Corn & Scahill, both good reporters.

[hiley]

17. I loved what Jeremy said at the bottom of article

Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is a frequent contributor to The Nation and Democracy Now! He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

and you are welcome.

[Phred42]

11. can't beleive the fear of discussion here.

the attacks, for simply posting an article that questions are rather Reich-wingest. Aren't they.

:shrug:

Let's not fall into the trap the Reich slid into of not being able to have adult discussions.

:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

13. The wingnuts have their 19%, and we have ours. The day I put party over humanity

is the day I deserve to lose my vote.

[Phred42]

23. I guess that 19% on both sides beleives that attitude and volume trump everything else

Problem is that the mods here will delete posts for some really stupid anti-democratic anti-freespeech reasons - when they give you one

[Hydra]

14. We already did

Don't worry about it- if the gov't wanted our opinion, they'd give it to us.

[Marrah_G]

16. ZOMG THE CLENIS_____THE CLENIS____!!!!!

You must have missed the other flamefests resulting from this crappy article.

[Grinchie]

19. The Washington Machine is now taking root in the Obama Administration

It always surprises me that the only ones chosen to serve in an Administration are well known career Politicians.

Never some unknown scientist or economist that has truly remarkable ideas or Philosophical views on the world as a whole.

Nope, all we have to choose from in 5 Billion people are the same one regurgitated from previous Administrations.

I bet Obama is thouroughly overwhelmed with selections made for him, and if he were to object after the fact, is being told it would make him look weak.

Who knows what B.S. goes on behind closed doors.

[bvar22]

20. K&R

I am disappointed by the high number of insulting demands for group-think, blind faith, and unquestioned loyalty.

There is plenty of historical justification for the Left to be worried about being shut out of the Obama administration, and a return to the "business as usual" politics of the past 35 years.

I will continue to keep watch.
I will continue to question.
I will support threads that post valid concerns and questions.
I will simply ignore the mouth breathing idiots who have appointed themselves as the DU Thought Police.

VIVA Democracy!


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[tonycinla]

22. Your attitude

Absolutely excellent!

[creeksneakers2]

24. It is a big change

Its a big change from George Bush. I don't worry about the ideological direction because Obama is the one who will have the last word.

My biggest worry is that Obama stocked his administration with so many big names. They'll all make demands for the areas they are assigned to. With the financial problems we are having now, Obama can't begin to make them all happy. Big names are very likely to go very public with their beefs about what is not being attended to.

[Two Americas]

35. define "it"

What is this "it" that you say has changed? The people - finally! - have throughly and utterly turned against and rejected Reganomics. That is the change. The people changed. That is how the Democrats were elected. The degree to which that is ignored, thwarted and compromised is the exact degree to which the new Democratic majority will NOT be "change" but will be more of the same. All that will do is put off the inevitable move to the left, and increase the misery in the meantime.

The only meaningful way to be "better than Bush" is to honor the people and undo the decades of Reaganomics - not to make them more stylish or effective or palatable - and to return to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement and restore and rebuild the public infrastructure. The people support that, it is what is needed, and history will damn the Democratic party should it squander this historic opportunity and public mandate and cave to and compromise with the Reaganomics faction.

I believe that there are those among us who support and desire right wing Reaganomics policies, but are not honestly declaring that but instead are using a variety of ruses to disguise that, as they attack any and all ideas that are even vaguely contradictory to right wing economics.

[bertman]

25. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them."

I voted for Obama because I wanted a President who was smart enough to learn those lessons and avoid repeating them.

Right now I'm wondering if the lesson he learned was not to do like JFK. For obvious reasons.

[AmyCamus]

26. I posted this earlier. It was shut down after pro-Clinton people flamed up the thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7899959&mesg_id=7899959

[laststeamtrain]

28. I don't go into the GD:P neighborhood if I can help it so I didn't see your earlier post.

Sorry.

A lot of first time voters (& amnesiacs) are going to be really surprised at how it all plays out.

We won! We won! Our faction of the War Party won! What'd we win again?

I heard a good definition of a 'yellow dog' Democrat the other day. That's a Democrat who just lays there & let's party insiders pee on them.

Pardon me for the colorful language.

:hi:

[AmyCamus]

29. That's why this thread is still up!

The GD:Pee-ers haven't seen it!

[4dsc]

30. K&R is you like the article!!!

This article is spot on!!

[AmyCamus]

32. Absolutely! Why can't Obama find NEW blood? The only qualified people are Clinton people??

I'll get flamed for this, but I don't care. We deserve a NEW, bright, young, diverse administration - not just mothballed Friends of Bill.

[kevinds13]

31. God damnit people...

Obama makes the final decisions and you voted for him cause you liked his positions. Fucking let him ACTUALLY be President before you start bitching and moaning.

Fucking pathetic.

[Two Americas]

34. that is not how things work

You can make calls for suppression of free and open discussion sound as benign and reasonable as you like, but that does not change anything.

Many voted for the Democrats our of desperation, as the lesser of two evils, and upon the promise from both Obama and his most zealous supporters that after the election all voices would be hear. We were also told that it was mere practicality that Obama needed to "run to the right" in order to get elected, and the unlikely claim was made that after the election he would move to the left. We heard from so many so many times that we should not worry, because after the election we would all be "holding his feet to the fire." Was that all a lie? All a trick to suppress voices from the left and covertly promote a right wing agenda within the party? Today's excuse for calling for people to shut up directly contradicts yesterday's excuse for doing that. Both cannot be true.

The election was a resounding rejection of Reganomics. What I heard again and again from working people, was "we need another New Deal" - in places were liberal activists never go - the poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods and depressed rural districts, where I have spoken for decades and where I rarely if ever see any liberal activists.

Now we have a small but aggressive and bullying faction within the party and the activists community desperately trying to drive the party to the right and hijack the mandate the people gave to the Democrats and squander this historic opportunity to unseat the corporate overlords and take care of the working people.

An election is the beginning, not the end, and hardly anyone voted with the understanding that they would then have to shut up and live with their choice, however that may turn out. Many Obama zealots said "he cannot reveal what he really wants to do now, because he needs to get elected." Now we are to have whatever right wing crap gets shoved down our throats because we allegedly "chose" that? I don't think so.

In a representative democracy, the politicians represent us, it is not our job to represent or promote them. We have a duty, it is out civic responsibility, and it is vital and essential to maintaining a functioning representative democracy that we speak out, at all times.

[laststeamtrain]

36. Who's 'bitching & moaning'?

How is reporting & critiquing ACTUAL events in the ACTUAL world 'bitching & moaning'?

If anyone is B & M-ing it's people who want to shut down the process.

I know people want a 'happy ending' but if there isn't one, there isn't one.

Data drives the process. The data is coming in. It doesn't look good.

Ignoring what's ACTUALLY there is pathetic.

Some of us have had enough of neocons & neolibs 'creating their own reality'. I crave real progress toward a more peaceful & just world, not a different cast of characters in the 'more of the same' show.

[AmyCamus]

37. Another fan of Clinton 3.0 heard from...

You might be happy that Obama wants to be the figurehead of the Third Clinton administration, but those of us who want CHANGE aren't.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Your change is not coming custom ordered.

Chill pills are available for those who have developed the habit to be against whatever is happening due to trauma they incurred during the Bush Administration.

There are 4 years to Obama's term beginning January 20th......and anyone complaining 60 days ahead of January 20th really needs to grow the fuck up.

Yeah...I said it.

[FrenchieCat]

40. It is pathetic....but let them moan and groan....

and be proven wrong like all of the rest of the moaners who whined throughout Obama's campaign....only to realize in the end that he understood things and had a better vision than they ever did.

The Bush administration did trauma to a whole lot of us, so it ain't easy after so long not to bitch.

[treestar]

41. The Clintons are Democrats, aren't they?

Why isn't it change to have an administration full of Democrats?

[ixion]

42. I personally havnen't been impressed with Obama's choices thus far

it seems he's gone from change, to the same 'ol shuffling of the deck chairs, and that is VERY disappointing to me. I expected to see change, not Clinton v2.0. :grr:

[olegramps]

43. This appears as a blank condemnation of the Clinton administration

As for the accuracy of this rant about various members who could be chosen or are advisors, it appears to me to be of the general nature to condemn anyone who was associated with or supported Clinton. Now just what was so horrible about the Clinton administration's tenure except the right wing war waged against it from its inception.

It is perfectly right to examine these people's positions, but I don't believe that this particular article was balanced in its approach. According to the testimony of Rice, Tenet and Powell as late as July, 2001 the actions taken to disarm Saddam had been successful. The PNAC neo-cons had petitioned Clinton to invade Iraq and he dismissed this as nonsense. As for Hillary, I read her speech and she at the end said that she did not believe that an invasion was warranted and it could only be used as a last resort.

I want our officials to be throughly examined, but I want it to be balanced and not a hatchet job.