Seems to be the word of the week for Democrats about Democrats. It's often being used simply because people had expectations for Obama to do things that he never actually promised (single payer, an end to all American wars). Since he has not fulfilled these fantasies (he never promised single payer, only hoped for it knowing it was unrealistic, and he clearly stated that he would put troops from Iraq into Afghanistan) some leftist bloggers are jumping to the conclusion that he wants war with Iran.
If his prompt attention to the Palestinian-Israeli peace proves anything, it is that he would like to avoid war with Iran. Why didn't Bush even try? For one thing it would have complicated the Neocon map of engagement. You can't work toward peace AND use Palestinians as a reason for war. Yet Democrats are today calling Obama a "Neocon."
Can we simply ask ourselves before we speak, "Is this true?"
And can we point out the true hypocrites that have mastered it so well that people often accept it without comment? Like when conservatives say they hate "group politics" when the left protects them, but then work hard to have us hate many different groups?
7 comments:
I think the passionate left has been unduly harsh on Obama. I myself would have vastly preferred a single-payer system and the immediate closure of Gitmo, but I would hardly classify Obama as a neocon.
It is very dangerous for the left to abandon Obama altogether, or to sit home and not vote this year. Doing so will certainly turn Congress over to the far right and make defeating a far right presidential candidate very tough in 2012.
The left had best be careful: they could be feeding and strengthening the very forces they find so distasteful.
My biggest complaint about Obama is he kept his campaign promise about Afghanistan.
I admire Mr. Obama's attempt at peace in the Middle East. And, I like you, do not think for a minute that he wants yet another armed conflict (i.e., in Iran). BUT, like Mr. Vig, I am deeply disappointed in his decision (which I think was politically motivated, btw) to escalate the matter in Afghanistan. That could ultimately prove cataclysmic.
I used to think our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by natural resources (and that is probably still a major motivator for multinational business and Republicans), but after hearing experienced journalists discuss the region I have concluded that Obama and the military are successfully keeping the Taliban from regaining their terrorist power as long as we stay, and thereby stabilizing Afghanistan from becoming a bigger threat to other countries. We simultaneously keep Palistan on guard, but not in control control. I think Obama is an honest broker and was very clear that he was hawkish before his election (which may actually be a necessary evil when it comes to Iran and all the other nations that are beyond reason and civility, et al.)
Pinks makes some good points, but I endorse Mr. Hart's remarks. Jack, I think things will change so much (for the worse) between now and 2012, that Americans will be begging for anti-war leadership. By that time, Obama's cred will be as thoroughly eroded as LBJ's was in 1968. Don't think we can get our AfPak Carnival Splendor towed back to shore by then. Progressives should start cobbling together a national lifeboat. Feingold is available.
Pinks makes some good points, but I endorse Mr. Hart's remarks. Jack, I think things will change so much (for the worse) between now and 2012, that Americans will be begging for anti-war leadership. By that time, Obama's cred will be as thoroughly eroded as LBJ's was in 1968. Don't think we can get our AfPak Carnival Splendor towed back to shore by then. Progressives should start cobbling together a national lifeboat. Feingold is available.
Post a Comment