NO CHANGE : An Inside Look into Barack Obama

Obama's key advisers, endorsers, and pillars of his campaign network:

1.  Zbigniew Brzezinski : Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission
                                            "Godfather of the Taliban"
    
Brzezinski, serving under the Carter Administration, was instrumental in supporting the Afghans against the Soviet Union.  At the time, the concern was real about Soviet Union expansion in Southwest Asia and what it would mean if they took control of Afghanistan. 

In an interview to the French press a number of years ago he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. He was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.  What’s a few riled-up Muslims?”

Without ignoring the gross ineptitude of Bush 1 and Clinton, here's the events, as they happened--Those "few riled up muslims" led to Saudi policies which prompted bin Laden’s exile and the Kuwait crisis that led to the placement of U.S. forces on Saudi soil, and then the civil strife that followed the exit of the Red Army from Afghanistan established the preconditions for the rise of the Taliban government...which led to 9/11, which resulted into international hatred for America by scores of countries as backlash from Bush's foreign policy.

The architect Brzezinski, in his own words from that interview, shows the complete arrogance of the policy in retrospect to the rise of ANY chain reaction that could harm the US in the future.  It is also worth noting the Carter Administration set forth a series of executive orders further restricting the activities of the CIA, limiting its power of surveillance and its ability to gather covert information and counter-intelligence, vital activities in defense of our country at the time.

Obama has not been bold enough to officially make him a key player, but Brzezinski's endorsement of the campaign certainly could suggest a role in the administration.

2.  Anthony Lake (adviser) : Failure in Foreign Policy

He was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

That isn't also the extent of his criticisms, when he was under the Carter administration as Director of Policy Planning he shared several intelligence disasters, such as:

The failure to forecast the revolution in Afghanistan ( I admit this one would have taken a greater mind to forsee).

Complete mis(dis)information on the upheavals in Iran.

Angola's invasion of Zaire. Carter accused Cuba of helping to train and command the Angolan forces and then was unable to produce adequate evidence supporting this charge - - a major embarrassment for the U.S. in the UN and before World opinion.

Also of note, he attempted to become director of Central Intelligence under Clinton in 97 and failed.

3.  Dennis Ross : The Israel connection, and a stroke in the larger portrait of  the intentions of Obama Foreign Policy

Ross, has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

He was responsible for the The Arafat/Rabin meeting and it was singular in establishing the Osslo Accords. Ross, however, failed as a peace negotiator beyond that. And since 2000 when al-Aqsa Intifada came into the picture, it's just as overall groundbreaking as Rice bringing Abbas and Olmert together for exploratory talks.

Additional information on more recent actions :
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/dennis_rosss_mythology_4.html
http://electronicintifada.net:80/v2/article6371.shtml

Obama's campaign has noted that its Middle East policy is strictly the province of four individuals, each of them perceived as pro-Israel, already counting Ross that's : Dan Shapiro, a longtime activist and bridge between the Jewish organizational leadership and Democratic Party; Eric Lynn, the Obama campaign's Jewish liaison who has lived in Israel; and Dennis McDonough, once the foreign policy adviser to former U.S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who has pro-Israel credentials during his time in office.

Some quotes from an Obama speech before the AIPAC Policy Forum, likely prepared by his advisers:

"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself."

"Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision."

"... a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."

Full Transcript of speech : http://www.counterpunch.org/obama03052007.html

Obama has also stated he would not negotiate with Hamas.

I share this information not because I am anti-Israel, or am a supporter of Hamas, but to show the simple fact that his advisers, like Ross, are invested in Israel's claims far more than Palestine and time will show this in political action if Obama is President. It also bleeds into overall foreign policy.

Iraq and Beyond

Consider Obama's goals when it comes to redeploying troops from Iraq. And that really is the key word here, redeploying, not "phased withdrawals". In his own words, "We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran."

That's Obama's version of the "100 years in Iraq" statement McCain made, only instead of Iraq it's more global. In fact, the only "change" is that we reduce a military presence in Iraq (which wouldn't really even make sense with his rhetoric if he's bent on and believes that terrorism is in the epidemic scale to which we need interventionist foreign policy and influence in the middle east). Then, we wage war and nationbuild more broadly though not outright in combat with Iran (at least in the beginning) but enforcing many, many, sanctions and other US over-powering tactics. I'll leave you to wonder how the predominant interests for Israel will also play out with Palestine.

4.  Sarah Sewall

Heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations.  That's right.   Obama, whose rhetoric suggests he would reverse troop levels and not follow the Petraeus doctrine, has an adviser who freaking wrote the introduction to the counterinsurgency handbook of that very Petraeus doctrine LOL.

Not to go off topic, but I would just like to add a sidenote: Even if the Petraeus doctrine succeeds in stopping almost all casualties, these are some reasons why I continue to support Ron Paul's verdicts on Iraq.

1. 500 Billion dollars spent on war. That's a statistic from two years ago, there are all sorts of numbers floating now in the impending trillion figures--not to mention the gross mis-management with billions "lost" and unaccounted for:

All this while we are facing a MAJOR economic reccession at home.

2. In every major Iraqi poll around 70% of the citizens want our troops out of their land even if it means a bloodbath of a civil war.

3. Loss of domestic National Guard numbers are adding to failing immigration security--not that there's a comprehensive policy to fix this on the horizon.

4. Due to the continuation of the war in Iraq and now the prototype War On Terror: Anywhere and Everywhere, an alarming style of domestic legislation is rising, in my opinion, that seems to begin to sway into the citizen being suspect number one, and all around weakening of constitutional rights.  (Obama will not be the one to deflect this movement of legislation BTW)

Last Impressions


Obama is at best a lesser-of-two-evils vote in the General Election.
I'd rather write in Ron Paul myself.

In all his rally speeches and campaign promotion, it's abstraction after abstraction, after abstraction. All his hardcore followers don't seem to mind that they are reading into the slogans while he doesn't delve into the issues in a serious cutting way, to them. Over foreign policy and the war in Iraq, instead of an assault on neoconservative war agendas, the differances between his foreign policy and McCain's are becoming trifles.  A sensible foreign policy with an emphasis on national defense and not overseas nation building is not on his ticket.  "The Patriot Act , Homegrown Terrorist Act, and the increase of legislation to pry in Americans' lives has been unchallenged in his firey blase speeches.

He's just another establishment darling and he's not going to say any of the things that really would bring "change". Let alone enact them as president. And the new type of politics shtick he uses is complete bullshit. Off the top of my head I would say question his character of complacency when Kucinich and Gravel were erradicated from the debate process prematurely, the latter of which was giving some healthy heat to Obama in the debates themselves. The man who is for a "new way of Politics" still feels like MSM should be free to silence opposing viewpoints in his own Party. One of many examples that manage to shine out indirectly from his very calculative please-all generalities.

I wonder if at any point the sweetly sounding platitudes will annoy the general audience that they are being cheated out of real open and transparent discussion--and lol, this is minor but his campaign YT channel shouldn't screen comments just because some people who did a little research might be less than estatic and question him in that forum.

I hope this information has been useful, thank you.