Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Obama Shows his True Colours

with 13 comments

OK, I really really tried to like Obama. Really. He’s new, he’s different, he said many sensible things. Superficially at least he seemed like he might be a Washington outsider with the skill and conviction to change this country’s course from the national suicide mission it is on. His recent drift to the right (the idea that he is moving to the “centre” when in fact he is drifting toward policies opposed by 80% of Americans is ludicrous on the face of it) was disturbing enough, but now he’s crossed the line into the narcissistic neocon sickness that has infested Washington.

I am referring to his comments after returning from his triumphant world tour. Obama said that the US must reassert its world leadership and “the world is waiting for the United States to reengage.” He continued on with a lot of blather about how he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan and how the Pakistani government needed to help more in the fight against the Taliban. Yaargh. First of all, I’m pretty sure many people in the world want the USA to butt out, not “re-engage.” And since 1945 the USA has been the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, with military bases and military forces spread over the entire globe. When, exactly, did we disengage to begin with?

It’s just more of the goddamn same basically, the USA is the good guys and if we just try hard enough, why, we can mold the world to out liking! At least the pre-Bush imperialists like Clinton and Roosevelt understood that if we were going to rule the world, we have to be subtle about it…and very clever and precise about how and where we intervened. Since Bush we have been in comic book land where we just have to shoot all the bad guys and everything will magically work out all right. Trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dead, and Iraq and Afghanistan turned into two of the worlds premier failed states…and all Obama can say is we have to try harder?

The world doesn’t want the USA to re-engage, they want the USA to lead by example, not lead by invasion. That is what is so sad and ironic about America’s foreign policy. There are good things about the American revolution, human rights and constitutional government are among the greatest contributions America has made to the world. And no, the USA doesn’t get sole credit for same, but goddamn it the founding father had some good points and tried to implement them. And two hundred years later we’re trying to force those good points down other country’s throats with cruise missiles and helicopter gunships. Right. “Humanitarian invasion” is an oxymoron.

Yet Obama now thinks our overseas adventures are a good idea, they’re just not being prosecuted right? No, interventionism is a terrible idea and is causing far more problems than it solves. Ron Paul had the balls and the brains to say that the USA’s overseas adventures were bad for the country, is it too much to ask that the so called opposition party takes the same stance? Apparently not. Since the Reagan years the Democrats have more or less completely joined forces with the Republicans, the differences between their party platforms are trivial. And Obama is just more of the same. I was thrilled when he actually talked about pulling out of Iraq, now that he is planning on pulling out of Iraq and sending the troops to Afghanistan, not thrilled.

I wish I didn’t feel compelled to say it, but Obama is what we used to call an Oreo Cookie in my younger racist days. It means black on the outside but white on the inside. I mean it more politically than literally, but Obama has all the liberal trappings down pat, but at heart he’s just another of the rich elite working for the rich elite. The fact that he is black and comes from a non-traditional background means nothing if he is in bed with the ruling elite. In fact no matter what the result of the election, Obama is set for life. I am hard put to think he wants what is good for America, he’s just another politician climbing aboard the gravy train. If elected I hope he proves me wrong, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

I apologize for the tone of this post, but it just pisses me off that the guy who got the Democratic nomination by promising change is morphing before our eyes into just another Washington tool. Oh well, maybe I should just go with the flow and pretend we are living in a Hollywood movie. My choice: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. I’m pretty sure it’s a public domain publicity photo too. Tomorrow: How to Survive a Nuclear Attack.)

Written by unitedcats

July 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

Posted in Politics

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree with what you said, but you could really go without tainting things right off with the pic.

    Blayze Kohime

    July 29, 2008 at 7:26 am

  2. Yeah, good point, I was a little uncomfortable with the original image, thanks for commenting. I changed it to the one above. :)


    July 29, 2008 at 7:49 am

  3. I’m a bit disappointed by this post, really. First of all the comment “the world is waiting for the United States to reengage.” is absolutely correct. Everybody here in Europe is eagerly awaiting a new president for the US that will actively and positively try to reengage and help building a better planet, not just do its own selfcenterd mindless things. Second, most people overhere do agree that focusing on Afghanistan and actually having a strong military presence there is a good idea. I’m not among those people, but just noting a fact here. Third, what is this comment about “the greatest empire the world has ever seen”? That’s the greatest bullcrap of alltime. Alexander the great’s empire was FAR greater, and both the Russian and Chinese empires are superficial to the US in size (either land and/or population). Having a presence in a region has no impact on the ‘greatness’ or size of your empire.

    Steffen M. Boelaars

    July 29, 2008 at 8:09 am

  4. Obama’s rightward drift correlates pretty well with the inclusion of increasing numbers of Clinton loyalists and advisers, who appear to be pulling the same old crap of being afraid of the Republicans instead of standing up and saying what Democrats actually stand for. It’s bullshit and it could well lose the election to McBush. Obama’s strength was that people believed he was standing up and telling the truth and offering to run the country in a different way, in a way that favored the people over the aristocrats and theocrats and the Republican crazies. Now he’s begun to look like the people he was standing against. Or who we thought he was standing against.

    As for the empire thing, it’s not about territory these days. It’s about influence, it’s about economics, it’s about the ability and threat to project power to get what you want, whether that power is economic, military, or political, and in that sense the United States has Alexander et al beat. Let’s not forget the over 700 military bases we have around the globe, either.

    As for Afghanistan, if having a strong military presence there is such a great idea, why is NATO being so passive about it? Maybe the Europeans have figured out the Afghans can keep going forever killing Europeans and whoever else is stupid enough to think they’ll put up with invaders and occupiers. Afghanistan will never be controlled by foreign militaries, and as long as those armies are there, the country is unlikely to become a functional friendly system.


    July 29, 2008 at 9:16 am

  5. Well, this was meant as a post expressing my outrage about Obama’s abandonment of his base, and my secondary remarks were not as well expressed as they might have been. IE I think my difference with Steffan were more semantic than real. Nonetheless he makes valid points, and I will address them in tomorrow’s post. Life after doomsday can wait another day. I hope.

    As always thanks for the thoughtful and constructive comments.


    July 29, 2008 at 6:39 pm

  6. You lost me completely with the oreo cookie bit, and I stopped reading further. That’s just offensive.

    Now Barack Obama is a big disappointment to you because you thought he was something he never pretended to be. He’s not your savior. He’s running for president of the United States as it exists, not a more perfect union that has yet to be created.

    I’ve got my differences with him, personally. I’m not happy about the FISA compromise, and putting more troops in Afghanistan isn’t going to solve anything. With that said, he’s a whole lot better than the alternative, and he will use diplomacy first and last, so the military show of force may be just that.

    I do not believe Barack Obama will start wars. If that’s not good enough, if you want him to be more than who and what he is in the circumstances of the world as it exists, there’s not much more I can say.


    July 30, 2008 at 3:00 am

  7. I’m going to have to agree with Micheal’s comment. I had a friend who was taunted by the kids on the street as a child with “oreo cookie” because his father was jamaican and his mother chinese. Therefore personally I see it as a slur, and not as an observation.

    While he may not be perfect or our saviour, I would argue he’s one of the better mainstream candidates that we’ve seen in several elections. (Yes I agree with you on Ron Paul, but as we both know he doesn’t play “the game” enough to ever be allowed near the oval office).


    July 31, 2008 at 7:07 am

  8. […] Space Exploration Obama Shows his True Colours […]

  9. I have clarified and apologized on the following post: Friendly Fire.


    July 31, 2008 at 7:51 am

  10. I have two things to say :

    – it seems to me that Obama is right when he say the world is waiting for the USA to come back, but not like Bush tried to (by destroying everything : countries, human right, environnement, economy.) The world would like to see the USA become a leader in human right, democracy and environnement (the European Union has no head, so it can be this leader, and we have now Sarkozy and Berlusconi, so we’re fucked up for a while.) If the USA do not become this leader, only the Great Capital will leads the way (until the EU wakes up. It might take a while.)

    – you have the choice between more war (McCain) or less war (Obama.)

    Yes, Obama would send more troops in Afghanistan, but it is better than more troops in Iraq and every body forget about the other war Bush started and didn’t took responsability for. So you can choose between more US-sponsored massacre in Iraq, and less responsabilities taken in Afganistan, and Iraq given back to the iraqis and every one looking bakc to Afganistan (“where is it, again?”)

    More over, 4 months before the election is a little to late to whine about the binary choice. You want a third way? To late. Build it for 2016 (2012 is still to close.)

    In conclusion, ok, Obama is not the perfect president. He is not the perfect defender of liberty and sovereignty. But what the Hell? Will you dare tell the world you won’t vote for him? You will let mister “hundred years in Iraq” become president? 8 years of Bush wasn’t enought for humanity. We need another monster. Let’s not vote for Obama.

    Luk from Switzerland

    August 2, 2008 at 10:23 am

  11. Well, no doubt Obama is the better candidate, but as I have explained before, I think the country would be better off if McCain is elected:

    Why America Needs President McCain


    August 2, 2008 at 11:03 am

  12. America does not need president McCain, and if America is so self-destructive as to elect him you would be right back here in 2016 telling us how America needs Jeb Bush so he can be held responsible. Your thinking is broken if you are that cynical.


    August 3, 2008 at 12:11 am

  13. from: Barbara in NY
    I am late to this topic, but you raise an important paradox with the recent Obama and McCain posts– what do we do when neither of the candidates comes close to our vision for the US? I voted for Nader in 96 because of outrage over Clinton’s support of welfare “reform.” As another paradox, it is because of the same set of concerns that I will vote for Obama this time around. I am in the middle of the middle class, and me and mine could withstand, with some discomfort, the continued assaults on our economic future that a McCain presidency will continue (such as maintaining tax breaks for mega wealthy and oil companies and ever more $ down the Iraq sewer, bailing out Freddie and Fannie but not Joe Six Pack who fell behind on his mortgage) But that lethal combination of misguided spending policies will put the final nails in the coffin of the American working class. No one can restore the economic power that “working stiffs” enjoyed in the post WWII boom, and Obama is, as you rightly accuse, leaning ever more to the center. But the differences between the 2 candidates on key issues will make a significant difference to those who currently teeter on the edge of poverty. That is why many who had voted “red” for the past several election cycles because of social issues are now moving back into the blue column. I cannot vote my ideals at the cost of the basic material needs of others. Still, though I think you go too far in advocating for McCain, I laud your critique of Obama. Progressives must stay engaged and apply pressure in order to give him the “excuse” he will need to attempt to challenge the status quo. But for the most part this should probably wait till after the election

    Barbara Simerka

    August 4, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: