The Gay Secretary
I didn't vote for President Obama because he had no track record proving to me that his actions matched campaign promises. I voted for the promises Dubya made eight or so years ago (more humbler foreign policy being one I fell for) and found out the hard way that talk is cheap - it is action that really matters. I can't think of a single promise kept from the Bush campaign - I can't think of anything done by the Bush administration that helped anyone I personally know anywhere. That is a universal statement - and I mean it. That, I think, is saying a lot.
Fast forward to the Obama campaign. Perhaps you've heard the saying that "a sure sign of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome each time." My lesson learned - don't vote for promises - vote on proven track records - don't make the same mistake twice. I supported Ron Paul based on his consistent record of action matching principals and promises. But forget that for now - Obama was elected - he's OUR president - yours and mine. (Apologies to non-American readers) I want to join the Obama supporters in supporting our new president. So far I don't think I can. Why?
Because the signs I've seen so far like (CLICK) this article where we read:
"Speaking to the State Department after Richard Holbrooke was appointed Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama said the worsening situation in the region poses a grave threat to what he called 'global security.'
"Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the America's war against terrorism and the deteriorating situation in the region poses a grave threat to the global security. It's an international challenge of the highest order. That's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy."
One problem I have with the statement above is the phrase "war against terrorism" which is really meaningless - or can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. It is a propagandistic phrase that we are all supposed to pretend we understand while none of us can define. I had hoped Obama was smart enough to understand that as someone said "a problem properly defined is half solved." What kind of problem statement is "war against terrorism?" What about things the U.S. military does that terrorize our foes? Are we at war against that terrorism too? This is not a word game - this is propaganda for public consumption - I'm not buying it.
Here's another reason I'm concerned that Obama isn't changing much regarding America's empire-oriented foreign policy. (CLICK) This article reports:
"At least seven people were killed, most of them foreigners, in a suspected US missile strike in northwest Pakistan, bringing to 15 the number killed in such attacks on Friday, officials said.
Friday's suspected US missile strikes were the first since US President Barack Obama took office in Washington and came one day after he appointed veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Then I came across this video regarding the banking situation and those Obama has appointed to key positions:
I also found (CLICK) this article by Grossman describing appointments made by Obama regarding the military-industrial-scientific complex.
Here is (CLICK) another article reporting on troop buildups coming for Afghanistan. Why? What is the mission?
We also know Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel, a former Israeli soldier, as the second most powerful man in the country. I don't see how change will come to America's policy toward Israel - a policy I disagree with very much since it seems so one-sided. If you don't think Rahm was in the Israeli military, watch this video where he doesn't deny it:
Now I ask you, reader, if you voted for Obama, are these moves representative of the change you voted for? Do you believe these initial moves are helping America? Why? How? Help me to understand exactly what it is you had hoped Obama would change because so far I see more of the same.
I would appreciate comments - I'm not picking a fight - but I would love to get on board with the "change we can believe in."
Fast forward to the Obama campaign. Perhaps you've heard the saying that "a sure sign of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome each time." My lesson learned - don't vote for promises - vote on proven track records - don't make the same mistake twice. I supported Ron Paul based on his consistent record of action matching principals and promises. But forget that for now - Obama was elected - he's OUR president - yours and mine. (Apologies to non-American readers) I want to join the Obama supporters in supporting our new president. So far I don't think I can. Why?
Because the signs I've seen so far like (CLICK) this article where we read:
"Speaking to the State Department after Richard Holbrooke was appointed Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama said the worsening situation in the region poses a grave threat to what he called 'global security.'
"Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the America's war against terrorism and the deteriorating situation in the region poses a grave threat to the global security. It's an international challenge of the highest order. That's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy."
One problem I have with the statement above is the phrase "war against terrorism" which is really meaningless - or can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. It is a propagandistic phrase that we are all supposed to pretend we understand while none of us can define. I had hoped Obama was smart enough to understand that as someone said "a problem properly defined is half solved." What kind of problem statement is "war against terrorism?" What about things the U.S. military does that terrorize our foes? Are we at war against that terrorism too? This is not a word game - this is propaganda for public consumption - I'm not buying it.
Here's another reason I'm concerned that Obama isn't changing much regarding America's empire-oriented foreign policy. (CLICK) This article reports:
"At least seven people were killed, most of them foreigners, in a suspected US missile strike in northwest Pakistan, bringing to 15 the number killed in such attacks on Friday, officials said.
Friday's suspected US missile strikes were the first since US President Barack Obama took office in Washington and came one day after he appointed veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Then I came across this video regarding the banking situation and those Obama has appointed to key positions:
I also found (CLICK) this article by Grossman describing appointments made by Obama regarding the military-industrial-scientific complex.
Here is (CLICK) another article reporting on troop buildups coming for Afghanistan. Why? What is the mission?
We also know Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel, a former Israeli soldier, as the second most powerful man in the country. I don't see how change will come to America's policy toward Israel - a policy I disagree with very much since it seems so one-sided. If you don't think Rahm was in the Israeli military, watch this video where he doesn't deny it:
Now I ask you, reader, if you voted for Obama, are these moves representative of the change you voted for? Do you believe these initial moves are helping America? Why? How? Help me to understand exactly what it is you had hoped Obama would change because so far I see more of the same.
I would appreciate comments - I'm not picking a fight - but I would love to get on board with the "change we can believe in."
No comments:
Post a Comment