Yesterday it was Dodd and Frank, who else will have their loyalty questioned?

[gogoplata]

Barack Obama criticised for failure to signal change in foreign policy
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 8:09PM GMT 05 Dec 2008

On a range of issues, from Kosovo, China, Russia and Nato's eastward expansion, and the Middle East, former White House officials and leading analysts are disappointed at how quickly the president-elect has moved to the centre ground since his election just a month ago.

"The tone, image and symbolism will be different, and he will have more interest in multi-lateral solutions ," said Doug Bandow, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan. "But I don't see evidence of dramatic change."
Mr Obama has not shown much sign of appreciating that "we have entered an age where the US can't dictate to the world any more" and that the US can no longer afford its global military role., Mr Bandow said.

.......

While Mr Obama campaigned on pulling troops out quickly from Iraq and promised to talk directly to America's enemies, he is now retreating from both undertakings.

He has also "failed to appoint people who would offer a fresh perspective", according to Mr Preble, who criticised the president-elect's experienced but conservative national security team headed by Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state. Mr Obama also appears to be falling into line with the Washington consensus that more troops need to be sent to Afghanistan. "A priority after he takes office must be to explain to the American people why they are needed and what the objectives are," said Mr Preble.

Col Lawrence Wilkerson, an aide to Gen Colin Powell when he served as secretary of state in the Bush administration, said Mr Obama appeared to be reverting to "Clinton era foreign policy but with more sophistication".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3568759/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-failure-to-signal-change-in-foreign-policy.html

....

Katrina vanden Heuvel, writing in the Nation, noted that in view of the fact Mr Obama had not only wanted to end the Iraq war, but "the mindset that got us into war", it was "troubling" he had "assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth".

Lionel Beenher, writing on the Huffington Post website, said: "Pardon the metaphor, but Obama is trying to put lipstick on the pig that is US foreign policy. His national security team looks no less hawkish than the team assembled during Bush's second term."

[lapfog_1]

1. Hmmm

"appears to be falling into line with the Washington consensus that more troops need to be sent to Afghanistan"

The Telegraph needs to get some better reporters. Alex Spillious clearly never listened to any of Obama's speeches or debates in the two years of the Presidential campaign. Obama was clear that the Iraq war was a mistake and that we needed to send MORE troops to Afghanistan and engage with Pakistan (not just Musharraf). That we needed to root out OBL and his terrorists from the boarder region between the two countries and that we needed to support and rebuild Afghanistan.

[natrat]

2. why defend dodd or frank when they so obviously gave the treasury to crooks? no gray area here

[stray cat]

3. Loyalty? To what?