Winstonm Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 ....Joe Biden has quickly taken on the role of Obama's Cheney, a hard-liner with a special antipathy toward Russia. In stationing sophisticated anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, the U.S. basically abandoned the INF arms-control treaty concluded by President Reagan. These provocative policies are not slated to end with Cheney's exit, but are finding new adherents in the incoming administration – including Biden, who announced the U.S. would pursue the missile shield plan. Biden's belligerent remarks on Russian-Georgian relations – "We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence"! – indicate little change in the frosty air of the new Cold War era. The launch pad for this challenge to Moscow – an international security summit in Munich – is significant: it was the Obama administration's first major foreign policy statement since the election. Americans voted for change – not a revival of the Cold War, but a new era in our foreign policy. Joe Biden: “We’ll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be continued pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives.” Once again it seems the winner of the election was not the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party but the War Party. All hail Status Quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hmm. I'd rather take Russia's word for it than some inflamatory editorial piece. A top Russian official Sunday labeled as "very positive" remarks by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the Obama administration's stance on major nuclear issues and relations with Russia. Biden spoke Saturday at a security conference in Munich, Germany. In outlining the new American administration's foreign policy, he told delegates that while the United States will remain firm in defending against nuclear threats, Washington aims to work with Moscow. Relations became tense between Russia and the United States over a proposed U.S. missile-defense shield with components in in eastern Europe. In his speech, Biden said, "We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost-effective." But he added, "We will do so in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia." It was Biden's first major speech as vice-president. Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who appeared with Biden for photographers before the two met privately Sunday in Munich, said he found Biden's remarks "very positive — restarting the button" on nuclear issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 But he added, "We will do so in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia." I wonder if he means "talk TO Russia" in the same manner he also said the administration was willing to talk TO Iran - Agree with us and everything will be fine; disagree, and suffer the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberlour10 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I followed Biden's speach in Munich live (with simultan translation), I did not notice any "cold war rethoric", rather, he offered a new style of political cooperation in the NATO and restart of relationships with Russia on different basis the Bush administration did. After he finished, all german political commentators agreed: "the wind of changes is here"! Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I followed Biden's speach in Munich live (with simultan translation), I did not notice any "cold war rethoric", rather, he offered a new style of political cooperation in the NATO and restart of relationships with Russia on different basis the Bush administration did. After he finished, all german political commentators agreed: "the wind of changes is here"! Robert That is certainly good to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hmm. I'd rather take Russia's word for it than some inflamatory editorial piece. A top Russian official Sunday labeled as "very positive" remarks by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the Obama administration's stance on major nuclear issues and relations with Russia. Biden spoke Saturday at a security conference in Munich, Germany. In outlining the new American administration's foreign policy, he told delegates that while the United States will remain firm in defending against nuclear threats, Washington aims to work with Moscow. Relations became tense between Russia and the United States over a proposed U.S. missile-defense shield with components in in eastern Europe. In his speech, Biden said, "We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost-effective." But he added, "We will do so in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia." It was Biden's first major speech as vice-president. Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who appeared with Biden for photographers before the two met privately Sunday in Munich, said he found Biden's remarks "very positive — restarting the button" on nuclear issues. Good point. BTW, do you look at the actual words (lawyerly) or what the listener believed he heard in the tone (philosophical)? IOW, if he said talk to instead of talk with does that matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 BTW, do you look at the actual words (lawyerly) or what the listener believed he heard in the tone (philosophical)? IOW, if he said talk to instead of talk with does that matter? If you are referring to: Joe Biden: “We’ll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be continued pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives.”Then sure I'll agree he wasn't exactly inviting Iran to Washington for a picnic of tea and crumpets. (However the distinction really doesn't mean much to me compared to saying "talk with" as much as it would in a written statement.) But having said that, he certainly neither said nor implied anything about war or even about violence, so I don't understand your reaction. Once again it seems the winner of the election was not the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party but the War Party.You are looking for something that, as far as I can see, just isn't there... Or at least I can compromise and say if it's there somewhere, it's not where you are looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Glenn Greenwald's article today included this tidbit on status quo: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...rets/index.html Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret. This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed. The ACLU's Wizner said this: We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court. I am never shocked when a politician makes a choice to protect a lobbyist and takes a corporation's side rather than civil liberty's side. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said today: Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same However, I am surprised as I thought this group would at least be smoother than the last group of thugs who held office. Apparently not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Last Friday I taught a class for a friend so that he could get away early for a family weekend. The lunch table generally has an active political discussion that I have often missed since retirement. I mentioned that I had finally felt comfortable choosing to vote for Obama after I concluded he was not as idealistic as he was sometimes portrayed. I also mentioned that I may have underestimated the extent of the truth of that conclusion. There was also an active discussion of whether Nancy Pelosi is dumber than George Bush or the other way around. The general consensus was that it is too close to call. Maybe I should unretire. But the Forum is a fine replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 President Barack Obama says he's not going to allow al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden "to operate with impunity" from safe havens in Afghanistan. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday night, Obama also said that while the political system is working in Iraq, that is not the case in Afghanistan. Obama conceded that Afghanistan "is going to be difficult," even more so than Iraq. He said the U.S. is "going to have to work smartly and effectively." Obama also said he doesn't have a timetable for completing the review of his Afghan policy. Source: AP News The differences between the Obama administration and the Bush administration continue to swell to near microscopic proportions.... BTW, Ken, Pelosi wins hands down (as long as you write down on her palms). I think Pataeus is positioning himself for a Presidential run - Obama had best watch his back. This is from an AP article. I think it hits the mark and I am beginning to sense Obama doesn't "get it". "We haven’t seen any practical evidence of any change,” said Anne Weissman, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Everybody’s waiting to get some concrete evidence of what this means. ... If all the litigation goes forward — status quo, there’s going to be a huge sense of disappointment, a feeling of betrayal.” ...a feeling of betrayal... Wow. Not even Bush brought out those kinds of emotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Why must Obama watch his back? Doesn't he have the Secret Service for that? <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Why must Obama watch his back? Doesn't he have the Secret Service for that? :PAnd they did such a bang-up job with John Kennedy's back.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I am never shocked when a politician makes a choice to protect a lobbyist and takes a corporation's side rather than civil liberty's side.I am never surprised when you find a quote to support one of your superstitions - er, theories. However, I am surprised as I thought this group would at least be smoother than the last group of thugs who held office. Apparently not.You mean the ACLU has a problem with a politician? I can't believe it! That never happens! The differences between the Obama administration and the Bush administration continue to swell to near microscopic proportions....Could you please elaborate on that comment in the context of the quote which it followed? Your objection is that there is no timetable for Afghanistan withdrawal before he has even begun to increase the troops or implement his strategy there? I'm sure I'm wrong since I usually am when I try to restate someone's thoughts, so please correct me. There was also an active discussion of whether Nancy Pelosi is dumber than George Bush or the other way around. The general consensus was that it is too close to call.Haha. I think George Bush is literally dumber and wins on some other qualities as well, but Nancy Pelosi has a far greater variety of negative qualities from which to choose. She is long past becoming my least favorite Democrat and making a run at least favorite Politician. I never thought in my life a Republican would fail to hold that title... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm sure I'm wrong That's good enough for me. :P I am never surprised when you find a quote to support one of your superstitions - er, theories. Heh, heh. You are right - it is not difficult to find quotes to support political cynacism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wow, 3 posts, no direct replies or arguments. I'm either really convincing or really annoying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 President Barack Obama says he's not going to allow al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden "to operate with impunity" from safe havens in Afghanistan. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday night, Obama also said that while the political system is working in Iraq, that is not the case in Afghanistan. Obama conceded that Afghanistan "is going to be difficult," even more so than Iraq. He said the U.S. is "going to have to work smartly and effectively." Obama also said he doesn't have a timetable for completing the review of his Afghan policy. Source: AP News This is from an AP article. I think it hits the mark and I am beginning to sense Obama doesn't "get it". Maybe he "gets it" but fundamentally disagrees with you. Don't worry about the Obama administration not being smoother... just about all of the National Security/Terrorism issues nowadays have complicated legal aspects that Obama is almost uniquely (among politicians electable to the presidency) qualified to understand and address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 President Barack Obama says he's not going to allow al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden "to operate with impunity" from safe havens in Afghanistan. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday night, Obama also said that while the political system is working in Iraq, that is not the case in Afghanistan. Obama conceded that Afghanistan "is going to be difficult," even more so than Iraq. He said the U.S. is "going to have to work smartly and effectively." Obama also said he doesn't have a timetable for completing the review of his Afghan policy. Source: AP News This is from an AP article. I think it hits the mark and I am beginning to sense Obama doesn't "get it". Maybe he "gets it" but fundamentally disagrees with you. Don't worry about the Obama administration not being smoother... just about all of the National Security/Terrorism issues nowadays have complicated legal aspects that Obama is almost uniquely (among politicians electable to the presidency) qualified to understand and address. I guess I didn't format this right. The "doesn't get it" did not refer to the Afghanistan quote. Here are the statements and correct quote referal meant. This is from an AP article. I think it hits the mark and I am beginning to sense Obama doesn't "get it". QUOTE "We haven’t seen any practical evidence of any change,” said Anne Weissman, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Everybody’s waiting to get some concrete evidence of what this means. ... If all the litigation goes forward — status quo, there’s going to be a huge sense of disappointment, a feeling of betrayal.” ...a feeling of betrayal... I am not sure Obama "gets it" that he will be a huge disappointment and many supporters will feel a sense of betrayal if he does not move strongly away from Bush policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I am not sure Obama "gets it" that he will be a huge disappointment and many supporters will feel a sense of betrayal if he does not move strongly away from Bush policies. It seems to me that Obama has in fact moved strongly away from the Bush policies where it is clearly reasonable and possible to do so in a short time. For my part, I approve of his thinking things through before acting. One thing I found most disturbing about the Bush administration was its almost visceral opposition to thinking things through before acting. Do I agree with everything Obama does. Absolutely not! But I certainly don't feel betrayed. I agree with Lobowolf that Obama brings strong qualifications to the presidency, both in terms of applicable knowledge and analytical ability. And he has no problem seeking out information and advice from others. For my part, I think that the US is very fortunate to have a president now who acts quickly when necessary, but who gathers information and analyzes complicated situations intelligently before making important decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE "We haven’t seen any practical evidence of any change,” said Anne Weissman, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Everybody’s waiting to get some concrete evidence of what this means. ... If all the litigation goes forward — status quo, there’s going to be a huge sense of disappointment, a feeling of betrayal.” ...a feeling of betrayal... I am not sure Obama "gets it" that he will be a huge disappointment and many supporters will feel a sense of betrayal if he does not move strongly away from Bush policies. I think he gets it; I just think that he has ideas as to what is best for the country that are not always in lock-step with those of his supporters. And when they're not in lock-step, he's certainly going to do what he thinks is best. In fact, what many of those supporters specifically trumpeted as one of his major selling points is that he'll listen to what people have to say, and he'll do what he thinks is best, because that's what a leader's supposed to do. If Anne Weissman anticipated that the major decisions of the new administration will be made by a vote of either Americans in general or those who supported Obama, she's in for a long 4 (8) years. There's bound to be some cognitive dissonance for people who think Obama can do no wrong and Bush can do no right. A trained monkey could have just moved in and done the opposite of Bush every time. Sometimes, they're going to be in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think he gets it I really hope he does. I believe there is a strong chance he could end up a 1-term President, though, if he holds too closely to past policy decisions. My cynicism, though, makes it difficult for me to believe anyone's agenda other than that of the military-industrial complex will be followed. I agree with Lobowolf that Obama brings strong qualifications to the presidency, both in terms of applicable knowledge and analytical ability. And he has no problem seeking out information and advice from others I agee with his qualifications - but if all you listen to is worn out status quo repetition opinion it isn't too helpful in change or in formulating new policy. In my opinion, Geithner = Paulson. Gates = Gates. Clinton = Rice.And in his first decision, Holder = Mukasey. Makes me think, "So much for promises of real change." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 In my opinion, Geithner = Paulson. Gates = Gates. Clinton = Rice.And in his first decision, Holder = Mukasey. Makes me think, "So much for promises of real change." Why does your conclusion lead you to your evidence, instead of the other way around? Edit: I guess in fairness either of those statements could be looked at as evidence to support the other. Still somehow it seems to me that no matter what he does, your opinion will not change as long as you can find someone who disagrees with his actions. I get similar feelings on the inside reading your thoughts in the political threads and the thoughts of a nameless other poster in the religion threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think he gets it I really hope he does. I believe there is a strong chance he could end up a 1-term President, though, if he holds too closely to past policy decisions. I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected. "Change" doesn't imply that everything will be different; it implies that some (many?) things will be. If the economy, the environment, and health care, but foreign policy stays largely the same, that doesn't mean there wasn't change; it means the particular change that you most wanted in your particular area of concern wasn't effectuated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 "Change" doesn't imply that everything will be different; it implies that some (many?) things will be. If the economy, the environment, and health care, but foreign policy stays largely the same, that doesn't mean there wasn't change; it means the particular change that you most wanted in your particular area of concern wasn't effectuated. Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction. I have admitted to my cynasism - and understand it colors my views. I tend to be pessimistic, also. I understand that, as well. You and Lobo make some reasonable points - but at the same time I am of the opinion that many (the majority?) of Obama supporters expect a vast break from past policies and politics - not just Bush but the all the way back to Nixon, including Democrats and Republicans. I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo. I believe President Obama underestimates the support that is his to attempt sweeping changes (optimistic hope) - or maybe he understands if he tries sweeping changes he will end up in Dealey Plaza in an open top limosine (cynical thought). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected. Me too. Of course he wants to be reelected, but if he consistently does what's best he should have a good shot at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.