Thread: Obama articulates an openly imperial foriegn policy

Alot of people noticed a shift in Obama's postions on critical issues since he was elected to the Senate. From foriegn policy, to Nafta and civil liberties he has bent over backward to assure the establishment that hes a safe choice. Many of his supporters attributed his so called "shift to the center" (the center as described by the corporate media often at odds with the majority of public opinion) as a way of him shielding himself from being labeled as "soft on terror" by the demagogs. A closer look at the issue shows the explanation for his support of the established doctrine is worse than him just being a coward.

Obama supporters who expect him to bring real change should prepare themselves for a buzz kill here. Total disillusionment is coming. A real eye opener to the much larger threat to the republic than mearly just a radical republican administration. Its the entire power structure that influences both parties and the corporate media. Not just Mr Cheney and his neocon partners. These are the leading facts indicating his alleged shift from the portside to the "middle" of the political spectrum:

ZNet - “Shift to the Center”

* his decision to become the first major party presidential candidate to bypass the public presidential financing system and to reject accompanying spending limits. This violates his earlier pledge to work through the public system and accept those limits.

* His support for a refurbished spy bill that grants retroactive immunity to telephone corporations for collaborating with the White House in the practice of electronic surveillance against American citizens. This violates his earlier pledge to filibuster any surveillance legislation containing such immunity.


* His appointment of the corporate-friendly Wal-Mart apologist and Hamilton Project economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director - something that stands in curious relation to his earlier bashing ("I won't shop there") of Wal-Mart's low-wage practices.

* His emphasis on how he's a supporter of "free trade," something that seems to contradict his campaign-trail criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

* His "tweaking" of his claim that he would meet with Iran's president (he is adding conditions)

* His embrace of Bush-McCain rhetoric on the supposed Iranian nuclear threat and his related promise to do "anything" to protect the military occupation, apartheid, and nuclear state of Israel from Iran (a nation previously attacked by Israel).

* His ridiculous call for an "undivided" Israel-run Jerusalem despite the fact that no government on the planet (and not even the Bush administration) supports Israeli's right to annex that UN-designated international city

* His latest weak statements on "combat troop" withdrawal from Iraq, indicating that an Obama White House would maintain the immoral and illegal U.S. occupation of that country for an indefinite period through permanent military bases.


His foreign policy team has been loaded with interventionist and imperial hawks from the start, including people like Anthony Lake (a former Henry Kissinger protégé and a leading strategist behind the bombing of Serbia), Susan Rice (a leading supporter of "humanitarian intervention"), Gregory Craig (who pushed the Clinton administration to embrace "regime change" in Iraq), Samantha Power (a celebrated academic air-brusher and deletion-specialist when it comes to the living history of U.S. global crimes), Dennis Ross (a leading Israel occupation apologist), Sarah Sewell (who helped top Iraq occupation commander Gen. David Petreaus update the U.S. Army's counter-terrorism manual), retired General Scott Gration (an Iraq invasion veteran), and retired General James Jones, who is being considered for the vice presidential role under Obama.

Continued..

Immediately after the US destroyed Guatemalan democracy in 1954, the National Security Council produced a Secret Memorandum titled "U.S. Policy Toward Latin America". It opened by explaining that the major threat to US interests is "the trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes" that respond to "popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and for production geared to domestic needs. This is intolerable, because the US is committed to "encouraging a climate conducive to private investment," and must "encuraoge" the Latin American countries "to base their economies on a system of private enterprise, and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment of both domestic and foreign capital," including guarantees for the "opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return."

Now Obama's imperial sentiments have hardly been restricted to the Middle East. Prior to his recent supposed "move to the center" from "the left," he endorsed U.S. client and death squad regime Columbia's right to attack "terrorists" in Ecuador and the application of the reactionary "Merida Initiative" (which combines the so-called "War on Drugs" with the so-called "war on terror" to increase repressive state power in Central America). He joined neoconservatives in warning about the ridiculous specter of Iranian - yes, Iranian - influence in South America. He has accused the Bush administration of "losing Latin America" and announced his intention to continue the vicious 47-year U.S. embargo on Cuba. He (in John Pilger's ominous and accurate words) "described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua as a ‘vacuum' to be filled."

In the openly imperial foreign policy chapter of his 2006 campaign book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama criticized "left-leaning populists" like "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" for thinking that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for daring - imagine! - to "follow their own path to development." Such dysfunctional "rejection of the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy" along with "American" ideas like "the rule of law" and "democratic elections" - interesting terms for the heavily state-sponsored U.S. effort to impose authoritarian and corporate-state capitalist policy imperatives on impoverished nations - will only worsen the situation of the global poor, Obama claimed.

Obama did not comment in "Audacity" on the remarkable respect the U.S. showed for "democratic elections" and "the rule of law" when it supported an attempted military coup to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez government (because of his opposition to the U.S neoliberal agenda) in April of 2002.

Obama also ignored a preponderance of evidence showing that the imposition of the "free market" corporate-neoliberal "Washington Consensus" has deepened poverty across the world in recent decades. Billions are forced to live in ever-more extreme poverty as Obama audaciously instructs poor and exploited states that "the system of free markets and liberal democracy" is "constantly subject to change and improvement."



ZNet - “Shift to the Center”

Originally Posted by Horhey

Immediately after the US destroyed Guatemalan democracy in 1954, the National Security Council produced a Secret Memorandum titled "U.S. Policy Toward Latin America". It opened by explaining that the major threat to US interests is "the trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes" that respond to "popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and for production geared to domestic needs. This is intolerable, because the US is committed to "encouraging a climate conducive to private investment," and must "encuraoge" the Latin American countries "to base their economies on a system of private enterprise, and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment of both domestic and foreign capital," including guarantees for the "opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return."

Now Obama's imperial sentiments have hardly been restricted to the Middle East. Prior to his recent supposed "move to the center" from "the left," he endorsed U.S. client and death squad regime Columbia's right to attack "terrorists" in Ecuador and the application of the reactionary "Merida Initiative" (which combines the so-called "War on Drugs" with the so-called "war on terror" to increase repressive state power in Central America). He joined neoconservatives in warning about the ridiculous specter of Iranian - yes, Iranian - influence in South America. He has accused the Bush administration of "losing Latin America" and announced his intention to continue the vicious 47-year U.S. embargo on Cuba. He (in John Pilger's ominous and accurate words) "described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua as a ‘vacuum' to be filled."

In the openly imperial foreign policy chapter of his 2006 campaign book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama criticized "left-leaning populists" like "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" for thinking that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for daring - imagine! - to "follow their own path to development." Such dysfunctional "rejection of the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy" along with "American" ideas like "the rule of law" and "democratic elections" - interesting terms for the heavily state-sponsored U.S. effort to impose authoritarian and corporate-state capitalist policy imperatives on impoverished nations - will only worsen the situation of the global poor, Obama claimed.

Obama did not comment in "Audacity" on the remarkable respect the U.S. showed for "democratic elections" and "the rule of law" when it supported an attempted military coup to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez government (because of his opposition to the U.S neoliberal agenda) in April of 2002.

Obama also ignored a preponderance of evidence showing that the imposition of the "free market" corporate-neoliberal "Washington Consensus" has deepened poverty across the world in recent decades. Billions are forced to live in ever-more extreme poverty as Obama audaciously instructs poor and exploited states that "the system of free markets and liberal democracy" is "constantly subject to change and improvement."



ZNet - “Shift to the Center”

Obama is anything but a safe choice.

Originally Posted by Horhey

In the openly imperial foreign policy chapter of his 2006 campaign book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama criticized "left-leaning populists" like "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" for thinking that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for daring - imagine! - to "follow their own path to development."

A direct cite to the actual quote would be instructive at this point.

Great post and thread. I've been following this "development" on Obama's part, quite closely.

HE, seems to be being "groomed", in the same way that maybe Palin is being groomed.

We do know, that Obama has worked very closely with Sen. Richard Lugar, one of the most highly respected behind-the-scenes guys in foreign policy, and also a Republican.

And Lugar, isn't a Neo-Con. However, he IS a... um... "hegemon", I guess you could say it that way. He believes in US hegemony.

So, it seems to me, that Obama, from whatever "idealistic" social-justice background he came from, is meeting the real world, and that process of adjustment, deserves CAREFUL scrutiny.

We saw what it did to Bush, right? He started his campaign in 2000, by saying all KINDS of great things, remember? No more nation-building, forward looking policies, yadda yadda.... and look what happened.

Bush, apparently, got his ear bent by the Neo-Cons.

And, it is QUITE POSSIBLE (Tick, you're right in this regard - "not safe") that Obama may get his ear bent as well. By whom and how much, is not entirely clear.

AND, Obama strikes me from the Git-Go, as a MUCH smarter man than George W Bush. So, we'll have to see how much Biden influences Obama, and how much it's the other way around.

Or, there's still the REMOTE possibility that maybe Obama really IS the Manchurian candidate, and if that's the case, we'll definitely know about it in the first 100 days.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Great post and thread. I've been following this "development" on Obama's part, quite closely.

HE, seems to be being "groomed", in the same way that maybe Palin is being groomed.

We do know, that Obama has worked very closely with Sen. Richard Lugar, one of the most highly respected behind-the-scenes guys in foreign policy, and also a Republican.

And Lugar, isn't a Neo-Con. However, he IS a... um... "hegemon", I guess you could say it that way. He believes in US hegemony.

So, it seems to me, that Obama, from whatever "idealistic" social-justice background he came from, is meeting the real world, and that process of adjustment, deserves CAREFUL scrutiny.

We saw what it did to Bush, right? He started his campaign in 2000, by saying all KINDS of great things, remember? No more nation-building, forward looking policies, yadda yadda.... and look what happened.

Bush, apparently, got his ear bent by the Neo-Cons.

And, it is QUITE POSSIBLE (Tick, you're right in this regard - "not safe") that Obama may get his ear bent as well. By whom and how much, is not entirely clear.

AND, Obama strikes me from the Git-Go, as a MUCH smarter man than George W Bush. So, we'll have to see how much Biden influences Obama, and how much it's the other way around.

Or, there's still the REMOTE possibility that maybe Obama really IS the Manchurian candidate, and if that's the case, we'll definitely know about it in the first 100 days.

It's pretty clear Obama will continue the status quo. He's a fraud. Look at his record in the Senate. He voted for the Patriot Act. He voted for the Fisa bill. He voted to fund the war for a long time and even when he didnt it was only a symbolic vote cause everyone knew Bush would veto it.

Hes also been speaking the imperialist language or in code. Words like "stability" and "influence". And hes adopted Reagan's democracy promotion programs which actually just means maintaining hegemony. In his most important speech on Iraq on the Senate floor, he talked of "maintaining our influence" there.

Here's the worst part..

The former civil rights lawyer said hes going to vote for HR 1955 - The Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act which classifies all forms of peaceful descent as "terrorism".

• This is a "Thought Crime" bill of the type so often discussed in an Orwellian context.
• It specifically targets the civilian population of the United States.
• It defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system that the government considers to be extremist.
• "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" are defined as thought crimes.
• Since the bill does not provide a specific definition of extremist belief system, it will be whatever the government at any given time deems it to be.

'Thought Crimes,' HR 1955 Passed With 404�Votes by Jeff Knaebel

Philip Giraldi: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Imperial foriegn policy? I guess he took some time out from being a terrorist and decided to pal around with the Chinese?

This is all brought to you by the same folks that lied about WMDs and deregulated Wall Street. Yeah, Let's trust them some more.

Originally Posted by bluesman

Imperial foriegn policy? I guess he took some time out from being a terrorist and decided to pal around with the Chinese?

This is all brought to you by the same folks that lied about WMDs and deregulated Wall Street. Yeah, Let's trust them some more.

Huh?

I'll just say I hope Obama supporters like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow hold him to the same standards as the Republicans. I know they've pointed some of this out about Obama, but then they make excuses for him alot.

They probobly will turn on him next year though cause it'll get to the point where the 'fear of being labeled soft on terror' explanation will collapse. Do you really expect Obama to give up any of the dictatorial powers he will inherit?

Originally Posted by Horhey

It's pretty clear Obama will continue the status quo. He's a fraud. Look at his record in the Senate. He voted for the Patriot Act. He voted for the Fisa bill. He voted to fund the war for a long time and even when he didnt it was only a symbolic vote cause everyone knew Bush would veto it.

Hes also been speaking the imperialist language or in code. Words like "stability" and "influence". And hes adopted Reagan's democracy promotion programs which actually just means maintaining hegemony. In his most important speech on Iraq on the Senate floor, he talked of "maintaining our influence" there.

Here's the worst part..

The former civil rights lawyer said hes going to vote for HR 1955 - The Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act which classifies all forms of peaceful descent as "terrorism".

• This is a "Thought Crime" bill of the type so often discussed in an Orwellian context.
• It specifically targets the civilian population of the United States.
• It defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system that the government considers to be extremist.
• "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" are defined as thought crimes.
• Since the bill does not provide a specific definition of extremist belief system, it will be whatever the government at any given time deems it to be.

'Thought Crimes,' HR 1955 Passed With 404�Votes by Jeff Knaebel

Philip Giraldi: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Yeah - well, that'll be the day, when they make an "extremist belief system" illegal.

That'e right up there with legislating the value of Pi

What a bunch of brain-dead f'in morons.

I'm sorry, but these clowns in Congress need to GO. They need to go FAST.

My advice to you all: vote as many of 'em as you can, out of office, NOW.

There's a window of opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Later, it may be too late.

The most troubeling part of the bill is the word "force" becouse of it's definition.

1. Homegrown Terrorism - the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
2. Ideologically Based Violence - the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definitions of Force:

1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
2. a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

3. a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

4. a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.

5. a. Military strength.
b. The entire military strength, as of a nation. Often used in the plural.
c. A unit of a nation's military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our forces have at last engaged the enemy.


force - definition of force by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.