Obama: neo-conservatism with a human face: The Audacity of Fraud: How Barack Obama Is Losing My Vote

[agdlp]

The Audacity of Fraud: How Barack Obama Is Losing My Vote
by Pierre Tristam
Published on Friday, July 20, 2007 by Candide's Notebooks
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/
----------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama writes a 5,000-word manifesto on “Renewing American leadership” in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. I was expecting fresh, bold new thinking-the audacity of liberalism. What I got instead was a Republican hawk in Kennedy clothing. If this is what we are to expect from the new generation of Democratic leaders, Bush’s legacy has nothing to fear. It’s writhing with life under a new guise. Call it neo-conservatism with a human face.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/

[Hardrada]

1. My worst fears.

[sandnsea]

2. fascism didn't pop up with the war in 1942

With such a glaring distortion right out of the gate, I'm hardly going to waste my time with this.

[MagsDem]

3. Thank god some people are waking up....

I swear, I think the base of our party that supports him does it purely out of ignorance. There is nothing "transformational" about Obama.

[elias7]

17. why don't you read Obama's article

instead of seeing what you want to see from someone who has done wrong thinking for you

[DURHAM D]

40. The base does not support Obama.

Many of Obama supporters for the most part do not seem to be Democrats.

They are political newbies, independents, green party folks, former Nader supporters, libertarians and first time voters (even though some are in their 30s). Many of them self-define as Progressives because they refuse to be identified as Democrats.

[sandnsea]

4. And here's Obama's actual words

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism. Truman championed a bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world. As colonialism crumbled and the Soviet Union achieved effective nuclear parity, Kennedy modernized our military doctrine, strengthened our conventional forces, and created the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress. They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.

IT'S SEVERAL PAGES, click above.

[krkaufman]

11. Thanks for posting a link to the actual Obama article...

... rather than one dude's spin on it.

[donheld]

12. Thanks for posting the actual article

Far too many here at DU can't be bothered to do a little research of their own. I started reading Obama's actual article and realize it's nothing like what the writer in the OP claims. It's so hard to find people who are really and truly interested only in the truth.

[Nailzberg]

5. Dude. Four paragraphs. It's not that hard.

You can't distribute other people's material like this. I know you're new, but if you are unfamiliar with DU discussion board rules, go check them out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


Copyright issues and Bandwidth Theft

Do not post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.

[agdlp]

6. Point taken !

:-)

[Nailzberg]

9. It's just that I'm a writer, so I gotta protect other writers.

I know you're new, so no big. :hi:

[krkaufman]

10. (deleted)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. Delete -- copyright rule was relayed in previous post

[eridani]

8. No difference between Obama and Clinton on this

That's why the money people allow them to be frontrunners.

[jj24]

13. TOTAL difference.

the dlc - and clinton - say, "we need to GRASP THE BRASS RING george bush has fumbled" in response to global affairs. in their platform, they talk about aggressive world leadership to conform to our economic interests.

obama is saying something quite different. he's saying that the neocon vision - outlined by the DLC in their foreign policy statement, as well as the PNAC/AEI statements - needs to be abolished, and a new one take over. i have to assume people who are afraid by reading this don't know enough of the philosphy to know how hopeful it truly is.

[eridani]

14. But he thinks pre-emptively attacking Iran or Pakistan would be a good idea

I see nothing but more imperial domination from him. Smarter domination instead of stupid domination doesn't cut it for me.

[cali]

15. bullshit.

he's the one who wants to have high level talks with Iran. She doesn't.

[mckeown1128]

21. Please, tell me a link.

I am pretty sure you just made it up the Obama wants to pre-emptively attack Iran or Pakistan. As someone who follows Obama's policies pretty closely I don't remember reading the attacking Iranor Pakistan part.

[eridani]

46. Below. The point is that it is idiotic to consider Iran any kind of threat at all

The US has cheerfully egged on both India and Pakistan in the nuclear proliferation arena, and now a country that has never attacked a neighbor since roughly the Sassanid dynasty in the 9th century is some kind of a threat? Obama is just plain behind continuing our policy of imperial bullying, which really has to stop as we just can't afford it anymore. The only "threat" Iran poses is as an independent country with one of the larger populations in the ME which isn't at the moment under the US military thumb.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2808&issue_id=2

[AntiFascist]

42. I hope this is true....

it seems like neocons may be trying to spin Obama's message into theirs. Hopefully Obama's vision and leadership does not foster continual war.

[BigBearJohn]

16. Thanks agdlp -- both articles were interesting.

[HamdenRice]

18. What a completely innacurate and untruthful summary!

Either the Common Dreams author and OPer have severe reading comprehension problems or they are being deliberately dishonest, because the Obama article basically says, as others have stated above, that he is going to replace militarism with multilateral cooperation and an emphasis on global shared security and shared prosperity.

[BlackVelvet04]

20. Horsecrap....

there is support for militarism throughout the whole thing.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. I really don't see it that way at all.

He pretty clearly states that the military is not the right tool, and certainly not the only tool for solving the world's problems.

[BlackVelvet04]

19. Sounds much like the PNAC papers......

the same old, same old.

Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.

Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military .....

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military.

But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability

We need to invest in building capable, democratic states that can establish healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth.

[RoadRage]

23. Ahh Yes - The "NEOCON" with the most liberal voting record in the sentate last year...

I'm sure the Repugs are just tripping over themselves to get to him and his conservative values.

What a complete load of crap!

[rodeodance]

24. Joe L??

[rodeodance]

25. "American exceptionalism" are code words for we are better than you.

[rodeodance]

26. says Mitt has an article in the same issue:

There’s more to Obama’s hawkish compulsions. He wants military ranks increased by 100,000. In this, he sounds indistinguishable from Mitt Romney’s prescription for the military, in the same issue of Foreign Affairs: “First, we need to increase our investment in national defense

[dmallind]

27. Oh come on

You know damn well that this kind of pablum is the norm for all viable politicians. There is only trivial differences between Obama and HRC on foreign policy and frankly I suspect even those would disappear once elecetd. Would Hillary really refuse to talk to Iran at a summit if that's what it took to avoid conflict? Not a chance! Would Obama start knocking on Syria's door cap in hand on day 2? Bullshit. Military superiority is and will always be an important bargaining chip on the world stage, and any preisdent would be an idiot not to see that.

[stillcool]

28. Neo-conservatism?

what will they call him next? I'm glad the link you provided sourced the original article. I liked this part:

Ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success -- unless they trust that their government hears their concerns as well. We will not be able to increase foreign aid if we fail to invest in security and opportunity for our own people. We cannot negotiate trade agreements to help spur development in poor countries so long as we provide no meaningful help to working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy. We cannot reduce our dependence on foreign oil or defeat global warming unless Americans are willing to innovate and conserve. We cannot expect Americans to support placing our men and women in harm's way if we cannot show that we will use force wisely and judiciously. But if the next president can restore the American people's trust -- if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility -- then I believe the American people will be eager to see America lead again.

I believe they will also agree that it is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. This was the time we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time we defeated global terrorists and brought opportunity to forgotten corners of the world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep.

[zulchzulu]

29. I just read Obama's article and Pierre Tristam must be an isolationist

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf070607a.htm

Here are the sections Obama wrote about:

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ
"The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group."

REVITALIZING THE MILITARY
"The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas."

HALTING THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
"As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world. America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years -- the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb."

COMBATING GLOBAL TERRORISM
"I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region."

REBUILDING OUR PARTNERSHIPS
"To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation."

BUILDING JUST, SECURE, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES
"People around the world have heard a great deal of late about freedom on the march. Tragically, many have come to associate this with war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change. To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law."

RESTORING AMERICA'S TRUST
"Ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success -- unless they trust that their government hears their concerns as well. We will not be able to increase foreign aid if we fail to invest in security and opportunity for our own people. We cannot negotiate trade agreements to help spur development in poor countries so long as we provide no meaningful help to working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy. We cannot reduce our dependence on foreign oil or defeat global warming unless Americans are willing to innovate and conserve. We cannot expect Americans to support placing our men and women in harm's way if we cannot show that we will use force wisely and judiciously. But if the next president can restore the American people's trust -- if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility -- then I believe the American people will be eager to see America lead again."

Where the HELL is any of this part of the "neocon" agenda? Is Pierre still pissed that his candidate Dennis Kucinich dropped out and this is his way of getting back???

[blindpig]

30. It's called Imperialism

What's so hard to understand? Every point that you quoted are about imperialism. They have nothing to do with the saftey of the United States and everything to do with hegemony. And if we were not engaging in hegemonic practices we would be much safer still.

Bring all of the troops home, all of them. Cut the defence budget in half, just for starters. Just think what that money could do for health care for all Americans, for climate change abatement.

[zulchzulu]

39. Good luck with a candidate who is an isolationist against "imperialism"

I'm against imperialism that basically has been a historical precedent ever since this country began, but the reality is that the US will continue its path that it's on for as long as it's a country.

Bringing all the troops home everywhere is NOT going to happen.

As for cutting the defense budget, I'm for getting rid of even 10 of the highest level Stealth bombers and this having enough money for Single Payer healthcare and massive funding for getting high speed trains and attacking issues related to climate change.

Will that happen? Um....

[blindpig]

41. Yeah, George Washington couldn't get elected...

Ya know, so-called realist like you are part of why we're in this fix. As long as we let the Man make our reality for us instead of making our own reality it will continue to be so.

It wouldn't be easy, it might require work and discomfort, possibly danger. But it should be clear that the people who are running the show aren't going to give it up without a fight.

As our world continues to slide down the tubes it becomes more and more clear that the solutions proffered by our "betters" are no solutions at all, they are but excuses for inaction.

[AntiFascist]

43. I wonder how Obama feels about ending our dependence on foreign oil?

It's really the "securing of our oil interests" (as well as the drug and arms trafficking) which create the desire for American Empire. If he truly wants to end the rule of the Shadow Government then that would be something.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Imperialism means US Troops still in Iraq-- "Withdraw all combat brigades" ONLY

Politicans are lawyers, every word is chosen carefully. COMBAT TROOPS ONLY BY A CERTAIN DATE MEANING OTHER TROOPS STAY BEHIND INDEFINITELY. Why are most people so ignorant of this???

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Neo-Lib. A concept that both Hillary and Obama subscribe to.

The difference being a neo-lib rather than neo-con is that the neo-libs say theyr're sorry after fucking up other countries.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. Hillary - a DLC subscriber

look it up. DLC firmly supports the Iraq war, and opposes populism.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. No, neo-liberalism is a very specific socio-economic agenda defined by globalism,

socially liberal elitism, and the creation of a hyper-wealthy, transnational overclass inhabiting "world cities" (that are themselves operated by pro business Democrats using the actual neoliberal model of the "world city" as a haven for the stateless overclass, whose government is there only to protect them from the rest of us and dispensing with the need for schools, public water systems, etc.) to go with Michael Lind's underclass (everyone else.)

[Political Heretic]

37. Sorry, the term "neo-lib" is already taken, and trust me, you don't want to be labeled with it.

neo-liberalism is a very specific kind of economic paradigm that underpins most neo-conservative doctrine.

I know, I know, its confusing. But historically, there's a reason.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. elect a Clinton and get another Bush Admin next

Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush

Let Hillary Clinton "clean up" after this Bush and then we get another Bush after Hillary.

Expect all elections to be abolished as they aren't needed.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Obama wants to increase the military by 100,000 and "go on offense from Djibouti to Kandahar"

(Obama's words from the Foreign Affairs article)

Wow... just wow. It's like he KNOWS the partisan
sheeple on this website will defend him without
skimming past his actual words past the flowery statements
and knows he can talk directly to the Foreign Affairs
crowd, "as adults" without the peaceniks realizing
what the entire Democratic party is buying into
with the DLC vs. the non-DLC candidate who shares
Hillary's entire agenda.

[Political Heretic]

38. How many people who have posted actually read the enitre Obama essay?

Just curious.

I didn't read the common dreams "spin." Instead I read the direct writing of Obama. I'm not going to provide a bunch of commentary since I'm a clearly identified Obama supporter.

I just think that everyone should read it all sentence by sentence before going hysterical.

[femrap]

44. K and R

Now if only the Obama supporters would take the time to read about their rock star idol...he has found his long lost father and it is The Corporation.

[ErnestoG]

45. You can tell how fast Obama is moving ahead, by gauging the hysterical invective

of his oppponents.

Go go go! LAUGH.

[NoBorders]

47. Hmmm... Hide thread must not be working again.

[Mass]

48. And this person is?\nt