Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream

Obama is just like the rest of them. There's this article/clip, and the deal with Rezko (not returning the funds, not auditing his own campaign finance trail), the issue with the nuclear group Exelon in Illinois that have been backing him financially (the two top execs for this company are his top fund raisers and David Axelrod, a consultant to Exelon, is his chief political strategist. What's that about eliminating lobbyists from Washington? He wants to increase the size of the military by 90,000 to 100,000 troops (this is on his campaign website. How will this happen (and why) and where will these people come from? All of you young people on the Obama band wagon better brace yourselves for the draft because the military can't recruit people as it is. He says he'll take some troops out of Iraq but not all of them and the ones he does take out of Iraq he will send to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's in favor of sending troops back to Iraq after taking them out (see his website) and in unilateral control of the military by the president. He's a proponent of the 2nd amendment in Idaho. You see this and it's no wonder the Republicans love him. But he's all for gun control in DC? Which is it? Is this politiking or what? So where is the change?

The take on this video strikes me as kind of a canard. Obama didn’t know the man personally; he was saying he seemed like a fairly normal Republican technocrat circa Reagan 1 or 2. The right portion of the stream is considerably farther over than it was then, virtually a different river now. Nobody really imagined just how deranged the Bush admin was going to go. Nader would have been run out of town on a rail if he’d tried to run with the Bush we know now, vs. the weak governorship/‘humble foreign policy’/apple doesn’t follow too far from the tree candidate Bush of the 1st campaign. He looked like a spoiled rich kid, and I didn’t much like the tree he fell off of (& worried maybe he hurt his head in the fall), but most liberals thought of Cheney and Rummy as steadying influences, unattractive in terms of policy preferences, but probably not as bad as some movement conservatives he might have chosen. Reagan only had one James Watt, Bush might have had a dozen. So it’s kind of a cheap shot to say now “Oh my heavens, he didn’t know that Rummy was going to bully the generals and that they wouldn’t stand up and say the war plan’s stabilization phase isn’t strong enough, and that he would effectively exile Shinseki when he answered honestly and talk only to his subordinate ’. No one expects that kind of judgment (at least, not from the candidate they prefer). If they do, their looking for a prophet, not a president.
Also, if you look at the complaints in the article that were raised at the time of Rummy’s nomination, the main complaint was that he was a “throwback to the Reagan era” - the Cap Weinbergur, Ed Schultz crowd. His “approaches to defense policy and spending,” he was “a dyed-in-the-wool hawk,” [says some fellow from the Council for a Livable World, which I’m sure was right up there with the Council on Foreign Relations and The Ford Foundation back then]. Just listen to the concerns: “Rumsfeld's unquestioning support of …Star Wars…the B-1 bomber, the Trident…and the MX missile…his …opposition to…SALT II… the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war...” They were mad because they thought he was like a Secretary Gates from an older generation. Well such a throwback to Reagan, sadly, would still be a big step up.
So the critics were completely ignorant of the real problem that emerged, the complete unilateralism, the utter lack of respect for military professionals and politicizing of the defense Department’s intelligence product, the incompetence and blithe condescension towards disagreement even with those who largely shared his own paradigm,’ the support for extrajudicial action like extreme rendition, the incompetence.

The reality is that what those people thought was wrong with Rummy & Cheney THEN wouldn’t have put our bacon in the fire in the first place without a real reason, a plan, and enough support. Those people had really no idea what these men were bringing to the table. It wasn’t just more Bechtels, a six hundred ship navy, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and picking fights with Khadafy over the international boundary. Man, what some wouldn’t give for those days.

Contrary to the reporter’s concern with what ‘we don’t know about Obama’, I think this underscores what we do know. I think the fact that Obama was willing to go part way and give the man the benefit of the doubt when he’d served his country from a different ideological stripe fairly ably is WHY people who think they don’t like us Left Coaster & so-called Eastern Establishment folks still find themselves liking Obama. This video, along with his position on the war, actually makes his case quite well in a nutshell: he can give the benefit of the doubt and listen to people who disagree with him, but he still keeps his own council on the policy. Plays well with others and decides straight. That's what we want in a President.

Did Hillary's campaign write this article?
The point is Obama doesn't have gơod judgment all of the time. There were plenty of people who thought Rumsfeld was a bad choice.
It's just like Iraq. There were people who thought Hussein had WMD. There were people who trusted Bush. Obama sêemed to have crystal-ball judgement about Iraq. But this proves that he doesn't.
You must be dreaming if you think Obama can be right on the time. He even said he will make mistakes.
It sounds like he was trying to deflect the Ashcroft comment with this one to appeal to conservatives. Obama the Republican-loving flip-flopper.

Obama is a master of illusion. He creates spectacular light shows, sings ideological ballads, and plays a fiddle with opposing tunes. His apostles buy into his magic act and ignore his flips and flops and inconsistencies.

Obama has spoken out of both sides of his mouth many times, and it is been well documented but his apostles ignore the inconsistencies. His followers are no different than the neo-con supporters of the Bush Administration; they are just on the opposite end of the political scale.

Sen. Obama has flip floped on issues. He is not ready to be president. He needs to be questioned with tough questions and see where does he stands. As soon as he is questioned with something, he say that is not what he meant. Is Obama ready? or he is just a great preacher, but not a great accomplisher?? Vote for leadership, experience and not a unseasoned senator that might not be able to do the things he is promising. REMEMBER THE FRASE..." I am going to be a uniter and not a divider??? George Bush said when he was running for president and look at what happened!

Where's the story?

Here come the attacks, get used to it, Obamaites. It's going to get A LOT worse.

There you go again 2009, hugging on POLLS to guide your thinking. Fluid situations change rapidly...tsunamis do that. Banking on your super delegates that count 10 times as taking Hillary to fruition? stop that...don't tell nancy who I am pulling for...the USA!!!! ronnie rayguns

Back here in Madison, the thought of The Capital Times & Wisconsin State journal being one paper is pretty funny.

DREAM, I always vote Democratic and will be there for Hillary if she wins. I voted for a republican once, for CESS POOL SUPERVISOR, because the job description fits them to a TEE...GO HEELS

I happen to think Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and would be a better president than Obama would ...

But ...

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I will fully support him and hope he wins the general election, because Obama would certainly be better than any of the Republicans.

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here would make the same statement if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

oBAMA SAID HE DISAGREED WITH RUMSFELD BUT THAT RUMMY WAS MAINSTEAM AS FAR AS AMERICANS WERE CONCERENED.WHERE IS THE CONTROVERCY?

PLEASE PLEASE .. WHERE IS THE PRAISE AGAIN? THIS IS THE SAME THING AS THE REAGAN COMMENT .. HONESTLY THIS IS INSANE!!

DREAM on clown. As I have said before, many Hillary supporters, especially the gals, are going to be disappointed that the first woman president is not going to happen yet. It should have already been Pelosi after bush and cheeny were removed, and our recovery should have been underway. That is where you gals and steny hoyer failed us.

RE: the handshake that didn't happen:

(excerpt)

"Reporters who witnessed the encounter claim that Obama stared stonily at Hillary as she approached Kennedy and Obama, who were seated across the aisle, and deliberately turned away from Clinton as she greeted Kennedy.

The first spin issued by the Obama camp came from his campaign manager David Axelrod, who explained on MSNBC that Obama turned away in order to give Clinton and Kennedy a moment of privacy.

When this story failed to connect, Obama campaign supporter Senator Claire McCaskill – seated at Obama’s left - modified it by spinning that she had distracted Obama by starting a conversation with him just as Hillary approached.

Bystanders report that the two spoke briefly after Obama had already turned away, and seem to be clear on the sequence of events.

After entering the HR chamber, Hillary spotted Kennedy seated on the aisle next to Obama and approached them smiling.
Kennedy extended his hand in friendly greeting, but Obama deliberately turned away.

Obama supporters who furiously claim there was no intent by Barack to avoid Clinton’s greeting are still trying to explain Axelrod’s original statement that Barack did turn away deliberately, albeit for a benign reason"

Obama talks a lot, but his deeds don't always match his words.

Obama was elected in Nov. 2004 and entered the U.S. senate in Jan. 2005.

------------------
As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he WOULD HAVE voted AGAINST an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted FOR the $87 billion,' I said 'NO,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' UNEQUIVOCALLY because, at a certain point, we HAVE to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama HAS voted FOR ALL of the president's WAR FUNDING requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

Obama allowed no interruptions (from people who wanted to talk to him) as he maneuvered his way to shake Bush's hand after the SOTU. Obama went out of his way to push through to Bush.

But even with Hillary visible in a red suit, he couldn't see her?

Give it a rest, folks; what Obama did was rude and childish.

How's he planning to treat leaders of foreign nations that don't please him? Would Obama be this tone deaf at a summit?

Obama is not ready for the big leagues.

"sam":

What about Whitewater?

You apparently know zip about Whitewater and just like throwing it around like an accusation.

The Republicans spent $80 million of our tax dollars "investigating" the Whitewater land deal -- two separate Independent Prosecutors led separate investigations into Whitewater and came up with zip about the Clintons.

The Clintons were never found guilty of anything in the Whitewater land deal and, in fact, they had lost money on it.

Were there ever any formal charges brought into a court about all the other things you mention?

So, after spending $80 million of our tax dollars "investigating" every nook and cranny of Bill Clinton's life, they came up with the fact that he had a flirtation with a woman old enough to know what she was doing -- and it was an affair that was never consummated.

Boy, I guess that's rare in Washington D.C. (sarcasm) -- having an affair and lying about it.

I'll bet if we spent $80 million on any politician, the investigators might come up with something -- an affair would be the least of it.

You had better come up with something better than Whitewater, because that well is dry.

Rupert Murdoch knows his failed neo-con right wing wacko backing is so wrong, Rupert himself said he was moving to the left. FIX NOISE like their business channel may indeed die a whining and well applauded death. Rupert, before he passes, hopes to keep them around in some kind of shape.Now, about that Rev.Moon lunatic??????

How do the Obama supporters explain away Rupert Murdoch's endorsement of Obama?

Rupert Murdoch also supported George W. Bush in both of Bush's presidential campaigns and Murdoch LOVED Ronald Reagan.

Doesn't that even give the Obama supporters a bit of a pause?

Good grief, is the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News also going to endorse Obama?