Good article. I cant help but notice a certain similarity between comments made by Greenwald and some comments I made in previous comments.
Back in July 5, 2009, after Obama’s Cairo speech, I said :
My problem with Obama is that I dont think he has what one may call “Plan B.” What happens if, as is most often the case, “reaching out” doesn’t work? What if the response given by the intended recipients of one’s attempt to “reach out” is to treat it with contempt, or as a sign of weakness? What then? . . .
I worry that Obama, who has not had to deal with the harsh realities of international politics, with its implacable hatreds. . . whose worldview has been crafted in a political atmosphere of leftist ideals disconnected from reality. . . is putting all his eggs in the basket of hopeful “reaching out” and will be unprepared down the road if the “outreach” becomes a mugging.
Well, indeed, here we are. Were at “Plan B” time, when something more forceful or decisive is necessary. The people who are now putting their lives on the line within Iran to move that country out of the control of a few mullahs, are counting on us. So is Israel. And so, probably in secret, are many Arabs, who have as much to fear from a nuclear armed, militant Iran, as does Israel.
I sincerely hope Obama surprises me and has more planned than simply to think good thoughts and mouth hopeful slogans.
While recent developments in global conflicts have authenticated these [neoconservative] notions, there remains a fundamental tension between their logical policy implications and the foundational political bearing of Barack Obama. The president has not yet implemented a “phase II” approach – that is, an effective sanctions regime – to motivate an intractable Iran; he has not offered unwavering support to Iranian democrats; he has not spoken plainly of victory in Afghanistan; he has purposefully created an air of confusion over his commitment there; and he has not embraced American success in Iraq.
Just sayin’, it sounds like were all talking about a “Plan B” that needs to be implemented… a plan of realism after the idealism has faded. And Mr. Greenwald is asking the right question: “Is Obama too arrogant to get mugged by reality?”
Baraq is the mugger, not the muggee. He has thrown the Right a crumb to gnaw on in hope of change. But it is taqqiya.
Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined “just war” and justified Iraq intervention:
Some pundits have also tried to find a criticism of the Iraq intervention in the speech. However, in defining “just war” for the 9/11 generation, Obama actually raised all the justifications for the Iraq intervention, though conspicuously without citing Operation Iraqi Freedom. The president’s message was plain: when non-military means fail to achieve the “imperatives of peace”, which is what happened for Saddam’s Iraq, then the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace”. Compare the following criteria from President Obama’s Nobel speech to the justifications for taking military action against Saddam’s Iraq in President Clinton’s 1998 speech and President Bush’s 2002 speech: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2009/12/closer-reading-of-nobel-speech-obama.html
I don’t buy the swill he was selling to the Pacifists in Oslo. It WASN’T the speech he gave mere days ago at West Point–IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. More flim-flam. This is the same man who thinks trying KSM and his butcher comrades in a civilian court, with all rights accruing, is the correct way to..what??
No real mystery here. Both Neocons and progressives believe in reconstructing the world. And they both know it takes a powerful central government to accomplish their shared mission.
Good article. I cant help but notice a certain similarity between comments made by Greenwald and some comments I made in previous comments.
Back in July 5, 2009, after Obama’s Cairo speech, I said :
Then in June 14, 2009, I said :
And now, Abe Greenwald writes in his article :
Just sayin’, it sounds like were all talking about a “Plan B” that needs to be implemented… a plan of realism after the idealism has faded. And Mr. Greenwald is asking the right question: “Is Obama too arrogant to get mugged by reality?”
Baraq is the mugger, not the muggee. He has thrown the Right a crumb to gnaw on in hope of change. But it is taqqiya.
Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined “just war” and justified Iraq intervention:
Some pundits have also tried to find a criticism of the Iraq intervention in the speech. However, in defining “just war” for the 9/11 generation, Obama actually raised all the justifications for the Iraq intervention, though conspicuously without citing Operation Iraqi Freedom. The president’s message was plain: when non-military means fail to achieve the “imperatives of peace”, which is what happened for Saddam’s Iraq, then the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace”. Compare the following criteria from President Obama’s Nobel speech to the justifications for taking military action against Saddam’s Iraq in President Clinton’s 1998 speech and President Bush’s 2002 speech:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2009/12/closer-reading-of-nobel-speech-obama.html
I don’t buy the swill he was selling to the Pacifists in Oslo. It WASN’T the speech he gave mere days ago at West Point–IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. More flim-flam. This is the same man who thinks trying KSM and his butcher comrades in a civilian court, with all rights accruing, is the correct way to..what??
No real mystery here. Both Neocons and progressives believe in reconstructing the world. And they both know it takes a powerful central government to accomplish their shared mission.
Obama’s just doing what he was hired to do: expand the empire.