Miracles do happen. I agree with the obamunist on something: removing censorship on scientific research.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Lone Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Obama's "seamless transition" to endless war > 18 November 2008 > > President-elect Barack Obama appeared Sunday on the CBS program "60 > Minutes" for his first televised interview since his November 4 > election victory. > > He covered a wide range of subjects with a lack of specificity and a > placid tone that suggested someone who had read through stacks of > briefing books, but had few defined positions of his own and was above > all anxious to offend no one. > > When asked what he had been "concentrating on" in the past week, > however, his answer was unhesitating: "Number one, I think it's > important to get a national security team in place because transition > periods are potentially times of vulnerability to a terrorist attack. > We want to make sure that there is as seamless a transition on > national security as possible." > > A "seamless transition on national security"; the phrase is well worth > pondering, given the strategy and policy pursued by the administration > that will be handing over power to an incoming Obama administration. > > The Bush administration enunciated a clear national security policy > that became known as the Bush Doctrine. Essentially, it proclaimed the > "right" of the US government to attack preemptively any country it > believes might pose a military threat to the United States. Underlying > this formally stated policy of aggressive war lay the determination of > the US ruling elite to advance its monopolization of wealth and power > through war abroad and repression at home. > > The Bush doctrine was the political expression of an explosion of > American militarism, leading to the continuing wars and occupations in > Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a series of military strikes against a > number of other countries, including Pakistan, Syria, Somalia and > Yemen. > > "National security" and the "global war on terrorism" were likewise > invoked as the justification for criminal policies that have included > kidnapping, extraordinary rendition, torture and imprisonment without > trial. > > Obama's determination to effect a "seamless transition" in this area > would appear to fly in the face of the fact that his electoral victory > is owed in large measure to the popular revulsion aroused by these > policies. If there were anywhere that the electorate might expect to > see "seams"—i.e., disparities, interruptions and discontinuity—it > would be here. > > Yet, even in the run-up to the election, Obama repeatedly made clear > that his differences with Bush were of a tactical rather than a > strategic or principled character. He tacitly embraced the policy of > preventative war, implying that he would employ it both to strike at > targets inside Pakistan and to preempt Iran's alleged quest for > nuclear weapons. > > And as the transition process advances, it is becoming increasingly > clear that—tactical differences over US foreign policy notwithstanding— > the pursuit of the global strategic aims of America's financial > oligarchy by means of military aggression and international > criminality is not about to come to end when Obama enters the White > House in January. > > Rather, the change in administrations is seen within the ruling > establishment as a means of bringing about changes that will make > American militarism more effective while providing, in the person of > Obama, a better political cover for the pursuit of American > capitalism's worldwide interests. > > In his interview Sunday, Obama reiterated his determination to "draw > down" troops in Iraq, but only in order to "shore up" the US war in > Afghanistan. He declared that his "top priority" is to "stamp out Al > Qaeda once and for all," making it clear that the "global war on > terrorism" will not only continue, but may well be escalated. > > The real shape of the military agenda that will likely be pursued > under Obama was spelled out in some detail Sunday in a lead editorial > published in the New York Times, a paper whose views reflect close > association with the Democratic Party establishment figures setting > policy for the incoming administration. > > Titled "A military for a dangerous new world," the editorial presents > a chilling blueprint for the building up of US armed forces in > preparation for multiple wars on a scale that will dwarf anything seen > in Iraq or Afghanistan. > > It begins by lamenting the fact that the protracted war and occupation > in Iraq have left US "troops and equipment … so overtaxed" that they > are not prepared to confront the supposedly necessary escalation in > Afghanistan or the "next threats." > > In addition to fighting to "defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in > Afghanistan" and "pursuing Al Qaeda forces around the world," the > Times argues, the US military must prepare to confront "Iran's nuclear > ambitions, an erratic North Korea, a rising China, an assertive Russia > and a raft of unstable countries like Somalia and nuclear-armed > Pakistan." > > The paper repeats Obama's own call for adding nearly 100,000 more > soldiers and marines to American ground forces—bringing the total to > 759,000 active duty forces. It goes on to assert, however, that, while > this "sounds like a lot," it really remains inadequate. > > Declaring that the military has been "badly stretched" by the Iraq > war, the Times concludes, "The most responsible prescription for > overcoming these problems is a significantly larger ground force." > > Where and how is an Obama administration to procure these > "significantly larger" numbers of troops? The Times does not say. One > logical conclusion, however, is that if such a significant change in > the size of the US military is to be effected it will likely mean the > reinstitution of conscription—bringing back the draft. Obama's > repeated invocation of "national service" and "sacrifice" in his > campaign for the presidency has laid the ideological foundations for > once again rounding up tens of thousands of American youth to serve as > cannon fodder in US imperialism's militarist adventures. > > Not only does the Times believe that the US military must be > substantially bigger, it also calls for it to develop "new skills," > particularly honing its ability to suppress "guerrilla insurgencies" > and conduct "irregular warfare." In other words, the continuing "wars > of the 21st century," to borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, will > include more dirty colonial-style occupations and subjugations of > oppressed countries in order to secure raw materials, markets and > pools of cheap labor for American capitalism. > > At the same time, the paper advocates beefing up the American > military's "lift capacity," i.e., the ability "to move enormous > quantities of men and materiel quickly around the world and to supply > them when necessary by sea." > > It also warns against China's building up of its navy and vows that > Washington cannot "allow any country to interfere with vital maritime > lanes." The editorial urges major new investments in Maritime > Prepositioning Force ships, which carry supplies needed for rapid > interventions by marines, and in Littoral Combat Ships, smaller > vessels capable of carrying out attacks on targeted countries' > coastlines. > > "What we are calling for will be expensive," the Times admits, > acknowledging that the current plan to add 92,000 ground troops will > cost $100 billion over the next six years. The substantially greater > buildup the paper advocates will entail far greater spending, as will > the beefing up of naval forces and purchasing other military hardware. > > "Much of the savings from withdrawing troops from Iraq will have to be > devoted to repairing and rebuilding the force," the editorial states. > So much for Obama's campaign promise to stop spending $10 billion a > month in Iraq and invest it instead in "rebuilding America." Rather, > that money will go to preparing still more death and destruction. > > Under conditions in which the bailout's pouring of trillions of > dollars into the Wall Street banks has occasioned continuous warnings > that promises of increased social spending must be shelved, it is > significant that there is no questioning here of the need to pour > hundreds of billions of additional funds into the US war machine. > > The Times editorial and the evolution of the Obama transition serve as > stark warnings that the desperate economic crisis of American > capitalism will produce an even more explosive development of US > militarism in the months and years ahead. > > > Bill Van Auken > > On Nov 18, 3:02 am, "Keith In Tampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Obama Wrote Federal Staffers About His Goals Workers at Seven Agencies > Got > > Detailed Letters Before Election By Carol D. > > Leonnig<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/carol+d.+leonnig/ > > > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Monday, November 17, 2008; Page A01 > > > > In wooing federal employee votes on the eve of the election, Barack > > Obama< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=info.. > .>wrote > > a series of letters to workers that offer detailed descriptions of how > > he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power > to > > bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies. > > > > The letters, sent to employees at seven agencies, describe Obama's > intention > > to scale back on contracts to private firms doing government work, to > remove > > censorship from scientific research, and to champion tougher industry > > regulation to protect workers and the environment. He made it clear that > the > > Department of Housing and Urban > > Development< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Ho.. > .>would > > have an enhanced role in restoring public confidence in the housing > > market, shaken because of the ongoing mortgage crisis. > > > > Using more specifics than he did on the campaign trail, Obama said he > would > > add staff to erase the backlog of Social Security disability claims. He > said > > he would help Transportation Security > > Administration< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Transportation+Securi.. > .>officers > > obtain the same bargaining rights and workplace protections as > > other federal workers. He even expressed a desire to protect the > Environmental > > Protection Agency< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Environmental+Pr.. > .>'s > > library system, which the Bush administration tried to eliminate. > > > > "I asked him to put it in writing, something I could use with my members, > > and he didn't flinch," said John > > Gage< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Gage?tid=informline>, > > president of the 600,000-member American Federation of Government > > Employees< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/American+Federation+o...>, > > who requested that Obama write the letters, which were distributed > through > > the union. "The fact that he's willing to put his name to it is a good > > sign." > > > > The letters, all but one written Oct. 20, reveal a candidate adeptly > > tailoring his message to a federal audience and tapping into many > workers' > > dismay at funding cuts and workforce downsizing in the Bush years. Many > of > > Obama's promises would require additional funding, something he > acknowledged > > would be difficult to achieve under the current economic conditions. > > > > Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the letters were intended to > > communicate to federal workers his position on their agencies. > > > > In a letter to Labor Department employees, Obama wrote: "I believe that > it's > > time we stopped talking about family values and start pursuing policies > that > > truly value families, such as paid family leave, flexible work schedules, > > and telework, with the federal government leading by example." > > > > Obama wrote to employees in the departments of Labor, Defense, Housing > and > > Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, along with the TSA, the EPA and > the > > Social Security > > Administration< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Social+Security+Admin...>. > > Defense was the only area in which he did not make promises requiring > > additional spending, the letters show. > > > > Some worry that Obama may have overpromised, with program changes and > worker > > benefits that would be impossible to achieve. "That strikes me as smart > > politics," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for > > Environmental Responsibility. "We'll soon find out if he can deliver when > he > > has to deliver his first budget." > > > > Obama repeatedly echoed in his correspondence the longstanding lament of > > federal workers -- that the Bush administration starved their agencies of > > staff and money to the point where they could not do their jobs. > > > > In his letter to Labor Department employees, Obama said Bush appointees > had > > thwarted the agency's mission of keeping workers safe, especially in > mines. > > "Our mine safety program will have the staffing . . . needed to get the > job > > done," he wrote. > > > > Obama lamented to EPA staffers that Americans' health and the planet have > > been "jeopardized outright" because of "inadequate funding" and "the > failed > > leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing > > commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency." > > > > In his letter to Defense > > Department< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+De.. > .>workers, > > Obama said he would examine flaws in pay and evaluation systems, > > but offered no high-cost initiatives. > > > > Ruch said that if Obama cuts Pentagon spending, he will not have to work > > hard to help the other six agencies. > > > > "These domestic discretionary programs are peanuts in the grand scale of > > things," Ruch said. "A small diversion from the Iraq conflict, if they > were > > put into Interior, EPA or > > NASA<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NASA?tid=informline > >, > > those agencies would be in their salad days. The National Park > > Service< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Park+Service.. > .>is > > laboring under a [maintenance] backlog that would be cured by a month > > and > > a half of Iraq expenditures." > > > > While pledging money to some agencies, Obama also acknowledged that some > > cuts may be unavoidable. > > > > "Because of the fiscal mess left behind by the current Administration, we > > will need to look carefully at all departments and programs," he wrote to > > HUD workers. > > > > Gage said Obama would cut deeply into agencies he finds lacking, and the > > National Taxpayers Union says there is plenty of opportunity for savings. > > Congress last year refused to consider a 25 percent cut for 220 federal > > programs the government rated as ineffective, passing up a savings of $17 > > billion a year. Obama did not vote on the measure while he was a senator > > from Illinois. > > > > His letter to HUD employees suggests a resurgence of the huge housing > > agency. Obama insisted that "HUD must be part of the solution" to the > > housing crisis and to keeping an estimated 5.4 million more families from > > losing homes in foreclosure. Several HUD employees cheered Obama's > letter, > > saying they hoped one particular line foreshadowed the end of political > > appointees who didn't care or know much about the agency's work. > > > > "I am committed to appointing a Secretary, Deputy and Assistant > Secretaries > > who are committed to HUD's mission and capable of executing it," Obama > > wrote. > > > > Obama also took aim at the Bush administration's focus on privatization, > > with contractors hired to perform government jobs -- often at princely > sums. > > He complained that a $1.2 billion contract to provide TSA with human > > resources support unfairly blocked federal employees from competing to do > > that work. > > > > "We plan specifically to look at work that is being contracted out to > ensure > > that it is fiscally responsible and effective," he told HUD workers. "It > is > > dishonest to claim real savings by reducing the number of HUD employees > > overseeing a program but increase the real cost of the program by > > transferring oversight to contracts. I pledge to reverse this poor > > management practice." > > > > Gage said he is not expecting every civil servant's wish to be granted > but > > he is hopeful. > > > > "I think Obama's going to be fair, he's going to take seriously the > missions > > of these agencies, and he's going to respect federal employees," Gage > said. > > "After the last eight years, that's good enough for me." > > > > *Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.* > > > > John Gage, president of the 600,000-member American Federation of > Government Employees, requested that Barack Obama write the letters. (By > Lucian Perkins -- The Washington Post).jpg > > 24KViewDownload > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
