The Duplicity of Barack Obama
Recent articles in the Sunday Times of London as well as editorials in the Washington Post have lauded the fact that, recently, many prominent Republicans (in name only) have defected to the camp of junior Senator and 2008 Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama.
In an article from the May 6th London Sunday Times, Sara Walker reports that people like Tom Bernstein; a Yale graduate with George W. Bush and co-owner of the Texas Ranger with him has thrown his support behind Obama’s campaign. Walker proceeds to flower the image of former Bush business partner with the following.
“Bernstein is a champion of human rights, who admires Obama’s call for action on Darfur, while Dowd’s opposition to the war has been sharpened by the expected deployment to Iraq of his son, an Arabic-speaking Army intelligence specialist.”
Also reported as a Bushite turncoat is Matthew Dowd, who served as Bush's campaign strategist in the 2004 presidential race. Dowd announced last month that he was disillusioned with the war in Iraq and the president’s “my way or the highway” style of leadership and even though Dowd has yet to fully throw his support behind a candidate, he has said the only candidate that interested him was Obama. “I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” Dowd said.
Putting aside these seemingly insignificant changes of the political winds, one new supporter of Obama has cast a grizzly shadow over the campaign of the supposed “anti-war” liberal candidate, Neo-Con columnist and Project for the New American Century founder Robert Kagan.
Kagan, a prominent neo-conservative, has been active as a Washington power broker since the mid-1980’s-- where he worked at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs and was a speechwriter for, notorious Secretary of State, George P. Schultz.
Schultz is long considered by many researchers to be a preeminent driving force in U.S policy even after he “officially” left office. Schultz, while in office, was responsible for the dismantling of the Bretton-Woods agreement as well as the destruction of the gold standard under Richard Nixon; he also worked in the economic sector as a hand puppet for the Rockefeller financial oligarchs as chairman of the International Council of J.P Morgan Chase. Currently, Schultz, at 87, serves as the chairman of the secretive S.P.P meetings (Security and Prosperity Partnership) as a key player in the institution of the proposed North American Union as well as working as a chief neo-con handler in the current Bush administration.
Robert Kagan, one of the original signers of the 1998 “PNAC Letter” calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in his April 29, 2007 column for the Washington Post applauds Obama’s recent speech for the Chicago Council of World Affairs as “pure John Kennedy”. (Full Text Here)
In this speech, mimicking the current neo-con talking points, Obama expressed desire to “stay on offense” in the War on Terror—which translated seemingly into increasing defense spending and raising troops numbers by over 100,000. Surprisingly, this figure eclipses some numbers that have been proposed by the more war-mad candidates John McCain (of whom Kagan is a informal advisor), Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney.
Kagan remarks in his article
When [Obama] said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.
Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.
It is clear by this glowing review of the speech, that Obama’s platform of “spreading democracy” is of great interest to the current ruling class of frothing neo-cons, who long for nation building projects all over the globe. Perhaps more troubling is the duplicity of Obama's message and the discrepancies shown in his speeches. From a campaign stop recently in New Hampshire, Obama told supporters the following.
“We are now in the midst of a war that never should have been authorized, never should have been waged,” Unless we bring that war to a close, we cannot deal with those other problems I just mentioned," such as education and healthcare, Obama added, his words nearly drowned out by the wild applause that followed his denouncement of the war.”
Even more bizarre is a speech made to the same Chicago Council of Global Affairs, nearly 6 months ago (Full Text Here) , where Obama seems to speak in direct contradiction to his more recent appearance before the Council. He states
“There is no reason to believe that more of the same will achieve these objectives
in Iraq. And, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more
troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. It’s not
clear that these troop levels are sustainable for a significant period of time, and according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover, without a coherent strategy or better
cooperation from the Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the
crossfire of a civil war.”
Where did this sudden change of ideology come from? Can we believe that Barack Obama is a trustworthy candidate? Can we expect to believe that a candidate like Barack Obama will attempt to stop interventions in the Middle East region? Can we expect him to clean up the corruption and crimes in Washington D.C?
Mainline Democratic candidates in this election, specifically Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have taken a very careful approach when it comes to support of Middle East occupation. Evidently, when surrounded by supporters, candidates flaunt their best case against the war, but in the presence of big money supporters, AIPAC lobbyists or Globalist think tanks they make their best case in support of it.
For example, at his most recent appearance in front of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, Obama continued this trend of pimping the stated PNAC/AIPAC agenda with his own version of self-righteous grandeur. "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission — we must lead the world, by deed and example.” Adding, "This president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open,” Mr. Obama said. “And it’s time to fill that role once more.”
If we are asked to accept Mr. Obama as the "leader of the free world", it must be pondered to how the Democratic faithful are going to reconcile the fact that, not only does Obama wish to continue the "War on Terror"-- but he has pledged to increase its size and scope?
The answer? Celebrate!
Many mainline liberal sites have failed to notice this shadowy endorsement by Robert Kagan, however, thankfully, a majority of Commondreams.org readers understand what this endorsement means and proceeded to post intelligent, well thought out comments about Obama's duplicity in this manner. Meanwhile many other clueless liberals, bursting with comical optimism, shower Obama with praise for his "extreme foresight" in his opposition to the war, as well as postulate on what his true Middle Eastern intentions are.
"Srelf" writes: "It is significant to me that in October of 2002 Barak Obama came out against the occupation of Iraq. That shows some real wisdom and understanding of international politics"
"Charleymudcat" writes: In the end, I trust him not to launch a foolish war. I also trust him to be fair to the Palestinians and to bring much needed relief to the inner city. In the end, look at his voting record, which when last checked was actually rated THE MOST LIBERAL IN THE SENATE, INCLUDING DENNIS KUCINICH!!!
It appears now, as if Obama supporters are taking cues from their "sworn enemies" of fake conservative Republicans, and are now relying on putting their full, implicit trust on a unitary executive system of government that decides what policy is best, not only for the United States, but for the world. Wasn’t it precisely this type of "global cop-nation builder" attitude that has placed the Bush administration in so much hot water with the American populous? Is this the Democrat version of "stay the course”?
The fact is that, at a recent AIPAC (America Israel Public Affair Committee) conference, Obama pledged protection of Israel as his "starting point" for Middle East policy, something that runs diametrically opposed to the idea that Obama has the best intentions for the people of Palestine. Stating "[the] effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy" Finishing with, "[t]hat will always be my starting point."
In regards to Iran's "nuclear program" Obama made it crystal clear that no options are off the table and that the global community has a moral edict, real or imagined, to stop Tehran's nuclear proliferation. "The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
To any Democrats who now may have apprehensions about voting for Mr. Obama, he can only offer you this reassuring declaration “[A]fter all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs,” Mr. Obama said. “I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make.”
In order to achieve this grand vision of "global leadership" Obama refers to, the answer does not lay on a return to the values of non-intervention expressed in the U.S Constitution, neither does it take into account the will of the American people, but rather rests on the policy of building up a global force to curb the proliferation of nuclear munitions. In this blatant call for U.S Internationalist supremacy, Obama added that this idea could only be fulfilled under an edict of a "reformed" United Nations and a strengthened NATO alliance. Obama, of course, makes no mention of the fact that the U.S, Israel and other Western allies (and some enemies) are all in possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons, neither did he express a desire in curbing the production of friendly nations. According to Senator Obama, only by limiting the nuclear proliferation of "rogue nations" and setting up an internationally regulated "nuclear fuel bank" can the American-led United Nations halt this impending global threat.
To people like Robert Kagan, Obama represents a spokesman for an untapped source of American voters, the disaffected youth, which longs for the charismatic, vibrant, populist candidate. Aware that the majority sentiment have turned against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it now seems clear that further acts of aggression in the Middle East will need to be carried out by a new smiling-faced leader instead of the familiar, stone-dead stares of the Bush administration. By maximum promotion of "anti-war candidates" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by the mainstream media, factions represented by Kagan are ensured of a "cooperative" Democrat candidate and, if elected, certainly appear optimistic to bootleg a war with Iran on the back of a trustworthy, handsome-- but most importantly, safe candidate.
CLICK ON THE BANNER TO
BUY TERRORSTORM IN