Barack Obama on foreign policy

Obama stated he will vote to confirm Petraeus for Central Command just like I am sure Clinton will do. He also voted to confirm Rice, Chertoff, and others for Bush. He is then not for change. He is one of them.

He also is pushing "clean coal" which is the biggest oxymoron on the planet. How can you state to have an effective climate change policy ( which none of them do) if you push this deadly energy source?

His nuclear ties show him watering down a bill regarding leaks in Illinois that he sided with the leaker on. His "self policing" policy is very simlar to Bush's. People get CANCER from leaking nuclear waste, and yet he came down on the side of Exelon which donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to him. Why is that if he cares about people? Why does he vote like a Republican while talking like a Democrat? How would his backing down to corporate interests here corrolate to his nuclear posture review, weapons proliferation, continuation of the Bush doctrine, and the eventual militarization of space? Just saying you want the troops out of Iraq just doesn't cut it when you say all options are on the table regarding Iran.

Why would black superdelegates feel threatened or intimidated to support Obama if his policy was really for change? The article at the end of this is in their own words.

Neither really have much. More important to me is what they are going to do now which based on my reading isn't very different from what we have now. And I would think if you care about foreign policy you would at least chair subcommittee hearings.

Excerpt from article:

"I get the sense that Barack Obama is also extremely intelligent, though I've not had the same kind of encounters with him that I have had with Hillary Clinton and thus can't give personal commentary.

But I am convinced of something about Hillary Clinton's commitment to use every lever and every aspect of government machinery to push her legislative and policy work that I'm disappointed to say that I can't find as strongly in Barack Obama's profile. My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings -- at least that is how the record appears to me.

Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings -- or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair -- or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton on a Subcommittee she chairs, and the zero hearing detail is disconcerting.

By the way, I have to praise the Environment and Public Works Committee for its website. I wanted to know what role Senator Clinton had played in the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and not only found testimony of all involved but found photos showing who was there.

I'm not trying to find a minor, nuanced difference between Obama and Clinton and inflate that to inappropriate levels. I am a fan of some of Obama's foreign policy positions -- though I think that I tend to appreciate his speeches influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski that reflect tough-minded thinking and hard choices rather than those influenced by former Clinton National Security Adviser Anthony Lake that seem to want America to rush into every global cause without clear delineation of priorities and an accounting of potential costs and consequences to our national interest.

But the question of how a Chief Executive would utilize the machinery of government towards the public good has always been of interest to me. Senators do have the opportunity to demonstrate executive-style leadership (or not) in how they deploy the resources taxpayers provide them in pursuing or informing legislative process."

After reading this report of Barack Obama's own words regarding military expansion, pre-emptive war, nuclear policy, and terrorism and his own quotes in debates, I am really beginning to think that the "change" he talks about is the status quo hidden under pretty words. I already know the Clintons are part of that status quo as McCain is as well, but I expected different from someone who claims to be progressive.

To many however, Barack Obama is a new face they are flocking to without even caring to delve deep enough into the words to get their true meanings. Well, after eight years of the deception, lies, and crimes of the Bush regime I am looking into the words and frankly, I'm not liking all I see. What I see is business as usual and it is so frustrating to think that we may have no choice but to go along.

Consider this quote of his from the linked article:


“To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”

How is this different from the current policy? So I think the overriding question to this is: will this policy be accepted if continued and if so, why? Why would we approve of expanding this military even more when this country already has the largest military budget in the world? And, would this expansion include nuclear?

* Also, the title of this entry is the title of the article, it is not mine, nor is the picture. I am currently not supporting any candidate, but am truly concerned that regardless of party we may not see the change we need to see regarding finally ending the war mentality that has dessimated our constitution, our economy, and our environment.

So why is Obama for increasing the military if he is for change? Isn't that status quo? And why does neither he nor Clinton say they wanf to bring the troops home? Is saying they want them 'out of Iraq' just a code phrase for putting them somewhere else?