I want to apologize for the negative tone of many of my recent posts

[bigtree]

When you spend every day obsessing on an issue, like I have since I came to this board in 2003, it dominates almost everything. I came to DU right after I bought my first computer, determined to wage an internet battle against Bush's militarism toward Iraq and everywhere else. I have spent almost every day (no exaggeration) posting here as a way to relieve the stress and emotion that I experience from my many other forms of protest and advocacy (no, I won't list them).

As close observers may have noticed, I warmed pretty well to the Obama nomination after first supporting three other primary candidates. I'm proud of Mr. Obama because of what he has achieved, but mostly proud of how he has achieved his presidency; with a grace and humility which I believe will benefit our party and our nation in ways that we could only dream of as we endured the Bush terms.

I was really fine and dandy (with a small tic of annoyance at some of the picks) until it came to the issue that I've literally aged over in the time I've taken it up as my most important cause: Defense. The decision to leave the Bush folks in place at the Pentagon, however temporary, floored me. I'll admit to more than a little insanity over the developments in the past week with the announcements over the national security choices. For anyone who has had to actually deal with me in person, my ranting here is but a fraction of the annoyance I generate over these issues of militarism and imperialism.

I may have pushed too hard in highlighting my disagreements with the Obama transition for some folks here and I apologize for that. I'll admit that I lost sight that this is a community board and not my personal platform.

I'll try and make a better impression and will allow the new administration time to actually make some decisions before I offer the same strident criticisms I've made recently. And, although I obviously don't accept many of the more personal criticisms, I do understand how important it is for folks to feel good about our new Democratic presidency.

I want to be a part of that optimism here, even as I work outside of DU to oppose every instance where I feel the last vestiges of the Bush regime remain as aggressively as I've advocated and complained in my recent posts.

So, sorry folks. Off the high horse now . . .

[JeffR]

1. Well

I haven't spent much time on DU recently, but I've read a few of your posts and haven't seen anything that didn't strike me as rational skepticism about some of the appointments. I've seen hysteria here and there, but not from you. Of course, maybe I just missed those threads.

[bigtree]

3. I took a look myself and decided

. . . that I can be more constructive with my efforts here.

[grantcart]

2. I didn't see any of the posts you mention but I did read dozens of

very balanced posts you did during the primary campaign.


One of the calmest voices at DU.


I don't care who he appoints for Defense as long as the person starts trimming the expensive exotic weapon systems and aircraft that will never make it to the battlefield - even Cheney tried to stop the OSPREY.


I am convinced that about 5-6 months ago Gates gave Bush an ultimatum on Iran, "no attack and stop the sabre rattling". Our whole posture toward Iran changed and we engaged them diplomatically.


If it takes somebody like Gates to trim the waste part of the Defense Department so that it is acceptable to the center and the right then so be it, the proof will be in the budget.

[malaise]

4. I love your posts

:fistbump:

[pacalo]

5. I mean this with all sincerity...

Perhaps you're spending way too much time thinking about this. Spend more time doing things or being with people you really like.

[bigtree]

8. wife and I are going to watch a couple of movies today

We've had a bout of economic hard-times and I am obsessing way too much on politics as an escape. It's definitely a refuge, but I've been digging in too much. Thanks for the advice.

[pacalo]

14. I know that it helps me in staying grounded.

:hug:

[KG]

6. skepticism is not negitivity.

rock on.

[leftstreet]

7. Jesus Christ. Is this a political discussion forum or a 12 step program?

Stop apologizing for speaking truth!

:toast:

[waiting for hope]

9. bigtree - you have always been

courteous and logical in your argument. I don't see where you need to apologize. I think this guy said it pretty well -

Jimmy Carter:

“The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself-always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity.”

[Greyhound]

10. I don't go to GD:Polemics, so I may have missed it too, but most of

over-reaction I've seen have been in the replies berating you for posting your positions.

[Lerkfish]

11. I guess I missed it all. didn't notice you being unbearable or anything.

:shrug: you're ok by me as far as I know.

[Marrah_G]

12. Bigtree- you are always an amazing poster and a class act

If I could be more like any poster here, it would be you.

Even though the worst of the primaries you didn't lose your temper and posted terrific articles for both sides.

[endarkenment]

13. I agree with your over the top insanity on the defense picks.

No need to apologize as far as I am concerned. Gates is an abominable pick. Jones is just about as bad. That said, these creeps might just get us out of Iraq. I guess we will just have to see how Obama acts.

[Shiver]

15. Might find this a bit more to your liking, then...

Gates Top Depties Not Expected To Be Part of New Administration

Although President-elect Barack Obama's decision to keep Robert M. Gates at the helm of the Pentagon will provide a measure of continuity for a military fighting two wars, many of Gates's top deputies are expected to depart their jobs, according to senior defense and transition officials.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Gates's right-hand man in running the Pentagon day to day, is widely expected to leave his post, said the officials, one of whom noted that England's speechwriter is reportedly taking another job.

Leading candidates to replace England include Obama campaign adviser Richard J. Danzig, who could eventually replace Gates; Pentagon transition review team co-leader Michèle A. Flournoy; and possibly former Pentagon comptroller William J. Lynn, said Obama transition officials and sources close to the transition.

*snip*

More at link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102891.html?hpid=topnews

[TahitiNut]

16. If you're not pissing off some people ...

... you're doing something wrong. :shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

23. LOL!

Ain't it the truth, TN, ain't it the truth? :hi:

[yardwork]

17. I missed all this, apparently, but there is a lot to be angry about.

[leftofthedial]

18. I don't.

I feel more than a little misled.

[NNN0LHI]

19. I haven't noticed any negative tone whatsoever

And I usually read all your posts. You are asking all the right questions. Its just that no one has the answers because everything is so complicated.

Don

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I enjoy your posts

And the introspection noted in this OP is often reflected in your writing.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Too bad.

I thought your posts were just fine. You must let us know how you adapt to the land of milquetoast. :evilgrin:

[bigtree]

22. ha!

will do

[Hissyspit]

24. No need to apologize.

No has any business telling you to "shut the fuck up." It is inherently un-liberal, un-progressive and un-democratic.

[Cults4Bush]

25. Your empathy is.....

Quite amazing to behold. Im not going to say anything snarky about some few who opposed you with quite a bit more vitriol then you ever posted. I will say that for the most part you were eloquent, impassioned and honestly... for me spot on. However a large proportion of the board just doesn't want to deal with anything but a honeymoon right now and again honestly many of them have earned that honeymoon. I say let them have it here and do what you are going to do anyways stand up against officials who you know are bad for peace and justice.

You're an amazing human being BigTree, I had to leave not just DU but politics and the war behind for a while. I was so close to giving myself a heart attack and couldn't seem to bring down my BP, doctor finally quizzed me about my personal life and asked me to quit the activism for a while. My BP went way down into the healthy zone after a short time. I admire you and your ability to keep fighting and always will.

Peace to you always.

[earth mom]

26. I don't think you should give up what you believe in just to get along.

Never Give Up. :patriot:

[H2O Man]

27. I'm more interested

in positive ways that DUers who want to "lobby" the Obama administration (in making) have, than continued disputes on the forum regarding if it's "okay" to express disagreements. Those who are pleased with Obama's choices have every right to be pleased; those who are not pleased have an equal right to their opinion. The forum could best be used, in my opinion, by having the second group focus on what steps they can and should take.

[JohnnyLib2]

28. I'll say it again--

I think you are often ahead of the curve on substantive matters. Others will likely follow soon, with criticisms of their own. IMO, defense policies, and the soon-to-be revised estimates of the costs of Bush's follies, will be a center of attention again, soon.

[autorank]

29. "Say it ain't so" bigtree

Hey, whatever. I like your posts so no apologies accepted.

NOBODY has to be optimistic or pessimistic. This is still the United States of America. The Bush
neocon gang couldn't destroy that, in the final analysis. Citizens serve their country by speaking
out.

[CreekDog]

30. i have no quarrel with challenging Obama to do something you believe in

as long as it's done honestly and fairly.

your posts have been a good demonstration of how one should criticize. pretty rational, forthright but i would argue that they were fair.

the point of criticism is to get him to do what we want but not to damage him in the process.

and i loved the "Hillary getting the 3am call" post. :rofl:

[unhappycamper]

31. I can't remember a negative post you've made, bigtree n/t

[depakid]

32. You might want to read this article:

Obama Chooses an Unlikely Team of Hawks

In liberal blogland, reports that Barack Obama will probably choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and retired general James Jones as National Security Adviser and retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense have prompted a chorus of groans. "I feel incredibly frustrated," wrote Chris Bowers on OpenLeft.com "Progressives are being entirely left out."

A word of advice: cheer up. It's precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he's surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home. When George W. Bush wanted to sell the Iraq war, he trotted out Colin Powell--because Powell was nobody's idea of a hawk. Now Obama may be preparing to do the reverse. To give himself cover for a withdrawal from Iraq and a diplomatic push with Iran, he's surrounding himself with people like Gates, Clinton and Jones, who can't be lampooned as doves.

To grasp the logic of this strategy, start with the fact that Obama's likely national-security picks don't actually disagree very much with the foreign policy he laid out during the campaign. Jones is on record calling the Iraq war a "debacle" and urging that the detention center at Guantánamo Bay be closed "tomorrow." Gates has also reportedly pushed for closing Gitmo and for faster withdrawals from Iraq. He has called a military strike against Iran a "strategic calamity," urged diplomacy with Tehran's mullahs and denounced the "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. (You don't hear that from a Defense Secretary every day.) For her part, Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign embraced an Iraq-withdrawal position virtually identical to Obama's. And although they fought a sound-bite war over sitting down with the leaders of countries like Iran, the two candidates' actual Iran policies were pretty much the same. Both wanted intensive diplomacy; both wanted to start it at lower levels and work up from there.

On key policy issues, Jones, Gates and Clinton aren't significantly more hawkish than Obama. What they are is more hawkish symbolically. Gates is a Republican; Jones is a Marine general who once worked for John McCain; Clinton, as Senator from New York, has gained credibility with hawkish pro-Israel groups. In other words, what distinguishes Gates, Jones and Clinton isn't their desire to shift Obama's policies to the right; it's their ability to persuade the right to give Obama's policies a chance.

More: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862446,00.html