A Liberal Question!

[Lycurgus]

Obama has just wrapped up and announcing his security team. Base on them collectively, they are more conservative in "topic" nature than Bush. Yes, I realize we were promised change.

I am not judging his selections yet, one way or the other. However, I do have a question and I feel the best ones to help me with the insight I require, are those who support Obama and who are of a liberal political opinion.

Could you please share with me why he chose to go more conservative "collectively" in this area?

Please understand, this is not political pun. The talking heads on the left who I listen to have acknowledged this and their opinions are ones I respect when discussing their own side.

 

[Chris]

Obama is not an ideologue.

He chose the people he thought would do the best job.

Except for Hillary who he chose for political reasons.

 

[Silence]

Obama is not an ideologue.

He chose the people he thought would do the best job.

Except for Hillary who he chose for political reasons.

yeah what he said

 

[Mad Scientist]

Who do ya' suppose he'll pick for CIA Chief? Assuming anyone wants it that is.

 

[DavidS]

Who do ya' suppose he'll pick for CIA Chief? Assuming anyone wants it that is.

I'll take it! If I'm the head of the CIA, no Muslim will ever fuck with America again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.....from what I've seen, all the picks that Obama has done are pretty decent, with the exception of one.......

Robert Gates.

Now.....if Obama voted against the war, believed that we went into the wrong country and all of that, what in the fuck is he doing putting the same asshole in the position of SECDEF, that is the one who had put us in this fucking mess in the FIRST place?

I'm going to start speaking out against Obama soon unless he gets rid of Gates.

 

[Skeptik]

Obama has just wrapped up and announcing his security team. Base on them collectively, they are more conservative in "topic" nature than Bush. Yes, I realize we were promised change.

I am not judging his selections yet, one way or the other. However, I do have a question and I feel the best ones to help me with the insight I require, are those who support Obama and who are of a liberal political opinion.

Could you please share with me why he chose to go more conservative "collectively" in this area?

Please understand, this is not political pun. The talking heads on the left who I listen to have acknowledged this and their opinions are ones I respect when discussing their own side.

It depends on your definition of "liberal", of course.

Maybe Obama isn't as "liberal" as his opponents painted him, or maybe he is more pragmatic than ideological, as Chris suggests.

Let's hope he is pragmatic. Ideology largely got us into the mess we're in currently, and we desperately need some practical solutions to the problems we're facing.

As for Iraq, yes, Obama said that we should not have gone in to Iraq. The question now, however, is not to decide what should have been done in the past, but what must be done in the future. Saying we shouldn't have gone in is not the same as saying that we should simply leave. The voices saying that Obama wanted to "cut and run" from Iraq were simply wrong.

In fact, a lot of what was said about Obama and his positions during the campaign were simply wrong.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You know.....from what I've seen, all the picks that Obama has done are pretty decent, with the exception of one.......

Robert Gates.

Now.....if Obama voted against the war, believed that we went into the wrong country and all of that, what in the fuck is he doing putting the same asshole in the position of SECDEF, that is the one who had put us in this fucking mess in the FIRST place?

I'm going to start speaking out against Obama soon unless he gets rid of Gates.

In the first place Obama never voted against the war. He wasn't in the US Senate at the time and the Illinois Senate didn't have a vote on going to war.

In the second place, Rumsfeld was the SecDef in 2003 not Gates.

 

[Lycurgus]

It depends on your definition of "liberal", of course.

Maybe Obama isn't as "liberal" as his opponents painted him, or maybe he is more pragmatic than ideological, as Chris suggests.

Let's hope he is pragmatic. Ideology largely got us into the mess we're in currently, and we desperately need some practical solutions to the problems we're facing.

As for Iraq, yes, Obama said that we should not have gone in to Iraq. The question now, however, is not to decide what should have been done in the past, but what must be done in the future. Saying we shouldn't have gone in is not the same as saying that we should simply leave. The voices saying that Obama wanted to "cut and run" from Iraq were simply wrong.

In fact, a lot of what was said about Obama and his positions during the campaign were simply wrong.

Thank you for a well thought and full response. I do have one question in regard to it. Though I understand and fully expect both sides to exaggerate what ever they can, based on what the other opponent may say, I try to separate the rhetoric and fact. I also make it a point to try and listen carefully, reread speeches and then sort for what is meant as opposed to a repeated stump line. Obama did in fact set some very short term goals on removing nearly all troops from Iraq and he did give time limits. So in that respect, I think he set the tone, not so much the other side, though they did try to play it in every direction they could. As is to be expected.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Obama has just wrapped up and announcing his security team. Base on them collectively, they are more conservative in "topic" nature than Bush. Yes, I realize we were promised change.

I am not judging his selections yet, one way or the other. However, I do have a question and I feel the best ones to help me with the insight I require, are those who support Obama and who are of a liberal political opinion.

Could you please share with me why he chose to go more conservative "collectively" in this area?

Please understand, this is not political pun. The talking heads on the left who I listen to have acknowledged this and their opinions are ones I respect when discussing their own side.

We'll have a better idea of what Obama is thinking on defense when he makes his second tier appointments. That will show the direction his policies will eventually take us.

 

[user_name_guest]

I like what Obama is doing. He should keep up the good work. I rather have a centrist (Obama) than a fraud (Bush - compassionate <different synonym/connotation).

 

[Lycurgus]

I like what Obama is doing. He should keep up the good work. I rather have a centrist (Obama) than a fraud (Bush - compassionate <different synonym/connotation).

Other than the appointments what do you like which he has done since 11/4?

 

[Mad Scientist]

You know.....from what I've seen, all the picks that Obama has done are pretty decent, with the exception of one...
Robert Gates.
Now.....if Obama voted against the war, believed that we went into the wrong country and all of that, what in the fuck is he doing putting the same asshole in the position of SECDEF, that is the one who had put us in this fucking mess in the FIRST place?
I'm going to start speaking out against Obama soon unless he gets rid of Gates.

You wanna' know why Obama is keeping gates? Because Obama hasn't a clue how to defend this country. I'll bet he has never even given it a thought and all his friends are probably anti-military to boot so he can't choose from them. He has to keep Gates in there and hope he gets some resumes from people who know how to best deploy our military in defense of our country. He does want to get re-elected you know and that requires the votes of more than the "get out of Iraq" crowd. I'll say it again, when he saw the threat assessment briefings I'll bet he shit himself when he saw what threats are out there.
You may as well start speaking out aginst him now Sailor, cause you aint getting your "Anti War" SECDEF anytime soon.

 

[editec]

Obama has just wrapped up and announcing his security team. Base on them collectively, they are more conservative in "topic" nature than Bush. Yes, I realize we were promised change.

I am not judging his selections yet, one way or the other. However, I do have a question and I feel the best ones to help me with the insight I require, are those who support Obama and who are of a liberal political opinion.

Could you please share with me why he chose to go more conservative "collectively" in this area?

Please understand, this is not political pun. The talking heads on the left who I listen to have acknowledged this and their opinions are ones I respect when discussing their own side.

Contrary to the popular Republican propaganda liberals are often quite hawkish.

How this can be missed by so many people simply amazes me.

Democrats often take our nation to war, and as far as I can tell they're serious about projecting empire.

The major difference as far as I can tell is they LISTEN to their generals and don't wing it, like the Bush Advisor team seemed to do in Iraq.

Now, while our economy is weak, other forces in this world (Soviets, for sure) are going to be pushing hard to make their presence felt.

I think Obama wants people he thinks he can depend on since (I hope) he's focusing on domestic issues.

I'm hoping that hawkish advisors will imply that we are prepared to walk softy but carry a big stick, too.

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama has just wrapped up and announcing his security team. Base on them collectively, they are more conservative in "topic" nature than Bush. Yes, I realize we were promised change.

I am not judging his selections yet, one way or the other. However, I do have a question and I feel the best ones to help me with the insight I require, are those who support Obama and who are of a liberal political opinion.

Could you please share with me why he chose to go more conservative "collectively" in this area?

Please understand, this is not political pun. The talking heads on the left who I listen to have acknowledged this and their opinions are ones I respect when discussing their own side.

The thing is, many of you cons drank the Rush Limbaugh kool aid, and assumed Obama was a radical Marxist Lenninist.

The fact is, you were wrong. Or, mislead by the rightwing media you guys read.

I always told you Cons that Obama was more of a Clinton Democrat, more of a pragmatic mainstream Dem. You guys didn't want to believe me four weeks ago.

 

[ABikerSailor]

In the first place Obama never voted against the war. He wasn't in the US Senate at the time and the Illinois Senate didn't have a vote on going to war.

In the second place, Rumsfeld was the SecDef in 2003 not Gates.

Okay then, he spoke out against the war.

And, yes.....RumsFAILED was the SECDEF under Bush Jr, all the way up until the Dems won in 2006, then he bailed out. A coward if you ask me. But, there was Gates, who had worked under RumsFAILED, and since he was one of the principal players to sell the Iraq war to the American people, he's a bad choice.

Try again idiot.

 

[Gunny]

You know.....from what I've seen, all the picks that Obama has done are pretty decent, with the exception of one.......

Robert Gates.

Now.....if Obama voted against the war, believed that we went into the wrong country and all of that, what in the fuck is he doing putting the same asshole in the position of SECDEF, that is the one who had put us in this fucking mess in the FIRST place?

I'm going to start speaking out against Obama soon unless he gets rid of Gates.

I don't get that at all. The SecDef doesn't decide whether or not we go to war. He merely advises the President on current military assests and the status and capabilities of each and whether or not they can accomplish what the President wants to do.

Gates wasn't SecDef when we invaded Iraq anyway. Rumsfeld was from 2001-2006. Neither can make the decision to go to war nor deploy US forces.

 

[Lycurgus]

I don't get that at all. The SecDef doesn't decide whether or not we go to war. He merely advises the President on current military assests and the status and capabilities of each and whether or not they can accomplish what the President wants to do.

Gates wasn't SecDef when we invaded Iraq anyway. Rumsfeld was from 2001-2006. Neither can make the decision to go to war nor deploy US forces.

Your right Gunny.

As for Gates, it is mere guilt by association. Given the fact that Obama knows his base is going to be short sighted like that, I'm surprised he kept him. Clearly Gates is doing something right!

 

[Gord]

Contrary to the popular Republican propaganda liberals are often quite hawkish.

How this can be missed by so many people simply amazes me.

Democrats often take our nation to war, and as far as I can tell they're serious about projecting empire.

The major difference as far as I can tell is they LISTEN to their generals and don't wing it, like the Bush Advisor team seemed to do in Iraq.

Now, while our economy is weak, other forces in this world (Soviets, for sure) are going to be pushing hard to make their presence felt.

I think Obama wants people he thinks he can depend on since (I hope) he's focusing on domestic issues.

I'm hoping that hawkish advisors will imply that we are prepared to walk softy but carry a big stick, too.

Yeah - Bubba attacked Kosovo based on a fraudulent claim of "500,000" Kosovars being "ethnically cleansed" with no UN consultation or approval and no US interest. It turned out that a few thousand Kosovars were killed by the Serbs and almost the equal amount of Serbs killed by the KLA who had been previously branded by the US as terrorists. The whole war was a scam by Clinton.

Bubba also lobbed a few missiles at Iraq and Afghanistan and an aspirin factory.

Oh yeah - and then he cut and ran from Somalia after a Warlord shot down a Blackhawk helecopter, convincing Osama bin Laden that America was weak and a soft target. We all know where that led...

And we can't forget how Bubba saved Rwandans. ... Oops... I forgot. The great hawk couldn't be bothered to send in "5,000" troops to save up to a million Tootsies from being slaughtered.

Yeah - Democrats can be hawks...

 

[Zoomie1980]

Contrary to the popular Republican propaganda liberals are often quite hawkish.

How this can be missed by so many people simply amazes me.

Democrats often take our nation to war, and as far as I can tell they're serious about projecting empire.

The major difference as far as I can tell is they LISTEN to their generals and don't wing it, like the Bush Advisor team seemed to do in Iraq.

Now, while our economy is weak, other forces in this world (Soviets, for sure) are going to be pushing hard to make their presence felt.

I think Obama wants people he thinks he can depend on since (I hope) he's focusing on domestic issues.

I'm hoping that hawkish advisors will imply that we are prepared to walk softy but carry a big stick, too.

Soviets....there aren't any of those anymore....