Obama and the Middle East -- The Next Big Bamboozler? (Joshua Frank)

[Tace]

Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

Jan. 17, 2007 -- So I guess we know what the buzz is going to be for the next, ah, year or so. It looks like Barack Obama, the rookie Senator from Illinois, is going to run for president. He has received a plethora of accolades from key primary states in recent weeks for his (alleged) tenacity and willingness to shoot it straight -- not unlike the great bamboozler before him, Bill Clinton, who seemed to fool most everyone into believing his words actually meant something.

The gift Obama has is unique but potentially dangerous. A taste of his personal appeal: "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions,” he said in a video on his website. “And that's what we have to change first."

What are the problems the Senator plans on tackling? Certainly not the big one: U.S. policy in the Middle East. While assuring us that he supports the troops in Iraq, he’s made it quite clear he won’t bring them home, and instead has pressured the White House to come up with a plan on the matter of their own. How Obama, or anyone, can possibly believe that the Bushites could come up with a worthwhile strategy for Iraq is beyond me.

On Iran Obama also serves the status-quo with the kind of hawkish zeal we are used to seeing in most Republicans. He’s admitted he may favor surgical missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan if that’s what it takes to fight the war on terror. And Obama even boasts that Bush hasn’t taken a hard enough line on the foreign menaces.

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=834

[xkenx]

1. Sounds suspiciously "Puffed-up-Hawk" like Hillary.

When you are a Democrat without serious national security/foreign policy/defense creds, you have to look "Tougher-on-terror" than your Rethug opponents. Problem is, you sell your soul for the sake of the politics. Then it just gets easier and easier to stick a finger in the political wind on more and more issues. People like Wes Clark, who have led troops, gotten shot up in Viet Nam, operated on the world security stage, don't have to posture to pad their resumes. They can deal with the issues without political calculation getting in the way.

[acmavm]

2. I wouldn't waste my vote on the guy in the primary.

<snip>

On Iran Obama also serves the status-quo with the kind of hawkish zeal we are used to seeing in most Republicans. He’s admitted he may favor surgical missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan if that’s what it takes to fight the war on terror. And Obama even boasts that Bush hasn’t taken a hard enough line on the foreign menaces.

How about Israel? Well, according to Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, Obama may be to the right of the Democratic mainstream when it comes to the occupation of Palestine. As Abunimah told Philip Weiss of The New York Observer, Obama is a “master triangulator” who knows that “pissing off the (pro-Israel) lobby is not the way to the top.” Oh, and I almost forgot, Obama even embraced Israel’s brutal bombings of Lebanon last summer -- the type of complicity we’re sure to see continue if he’s successful in his evolving political career.

Beyond that, Obama voted in favor of the pork-swollen Pentagon budget last year, with its beefy handouts to Halliburton and the rest tax and waste crooks. So I’ll stop right there and ask, just what in the heck is the big stinkin’ deal about Barack Obama? Aside from not being Hillary Clinton, Obama has little to offer the antiwar movement or proponents of an alternative U.S. strategy for the Middle East.

<snip>

Barack Obama may indeed talk big about “change” and “priorities,” but that’s all it is: talk. The main concern this year and next will be Iraq and the Middle East. If Obama can’t offer up an alternative solution to the mess we’ve helped create in the region, he doesn’t deserve our support.

[bigdarryl]

3. OH PLEASE!!!! none of these idiots running for President on both sides...

is going to do anything about the Middle East. because of the oil that we rely on over there.So Obama or who ever isn't going to do shit about us leaving there.Why do you think there building permanent military bases in Iraq.we will have up to 50,000 troops in that country for the next 40 or more years regardless of who is the president

[acmavm]

7. OH PLEASE!!!! Just from watching the guy since he got into

office he's been nothing but a disappointment. Obama talks big but as they say, he's all show and no go.

[katsy]

4. Oh goody... a one-size-fits-all smear.

One article that fits probably all our Candidates save one or two.

They'll get to those whose hands are clean in the next issue I'm sure. :sarcasm:

[Henryman]

5. I like that Katsy!

They'll get to that in the next issue!!!

LOL in my cube.

Let's hear what each candidate has to say before we smear him/her.
Last I checked, the primaries are not being held today.

Thanks.

[katsy]

6. Welcome to DU Henryman.

:hi:

I'm with you on this.

Obama's way of dealing with terrorism, in all fairness, would probably not be blowing up the whole ME.

[fuzzyball]

8. If Obama is pro-Israel, I may consider backing him ...eom

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. No. Here's an article from New Yorker

Obama has not yet articulated an overarching national-security world view; the political danger in doing so is that it could alienate him from a wing of his party at a time when he’s just becoming widely known. In a conversation last month, he focussed on some of the most worrisome issues facing the United States, saying that the possibility of Al Qaeda or another terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon was “the No. 1 threat” facing America, and he warned that deterrence theories might not apply to the regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang. “Just because they’re state actors doesn’t mean they might not act irrationally,” he said. “We can’t gauge their decision-making process accurately, partly because our intelligence capabilities have been entirely inadequate to the task, and partly due to the nature of the regimes. Whatever you want to say about the Soviets, they were essentially conservative. The North Korean regime and the Iranians are driven more by ideology and fantasy.” On the other hand, he is hesitant to describe a scenario in which he would actually use force against those regimes....

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070115fa_fact?page=2

[The Magistrate]

10. It Is Unkind, Sir, To Introduce Facts To These Squawks By Frank

He operates on a simple principle: any Democrat who is widely known and highly regarded among the people is a demon worse than even the most reactionary Republican, who must be destroyed, lest the Democratic Party actually carry elections and control the national government. Despite his protestations, Frank's real interest is securing Republican dominance, in the deluded hope this will somehow lead to the people turning to radical left leadership, such as he fancies himself to be, in their travail: in short, just another "let's make it worse so we can rule the ruins" clown....

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. well, we can (and must) always try

to introduce facts.

[aein]

11. i stopped reading when he used the word "plethora"

[paulk]

12. I stopped reading when I saw the words "Joshua Frank"

[BL611]

13. Bullsh*t

First off, Frank is one of Alexander "I hate every Democrat and want to see them lose" COCKburn's minion's.

Here are Obama's actual positions all easily verifiable by 5 minutes of web research

1) He has been quite clear that he is FOR a phase withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and has been against the war since its conception.
2) Of course he has not categorically denied any possibility of ever taking military action against Iran, how could you possibly expect anyone to say that. That being said he has encouraged the type of diplomacy with Iran that will lead to a peaceful solution.
3)"Obama may be to the right of the Democratic mainstream when it comes to the occupation of Palestine", wow he MAY be? according to what?

This is all a bunch of crap ranging from pure unsubstantiated speculation to the demonstrably false.If you want to buy into this crap, whatever go write in Noam Chomsky for President:eyes:

[blm]

14. I'm no Obama fan, but Joshua Frank is going way over the top with this attack.

.