Hardly. Cheney said they're qualified and then said he doesn't agree with them ideologically.

How in god's name is this thread-worthy? This sub-forum has really gone to shit.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hardly. Cheney said they're qualified and then said he doesn't agree with them ideologically.

i think Dick was making a distinction between himself and Obama personally rather than Obama's "team"

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i think Dick was making a distinction between himself and Obama personally rather than Obama's "team"

So you're prepared to make the argument that Susan Rice, Gen. James Jones, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Andrew Bacevich are somehow more ideologically compatible with Cheney? Have at it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So you're prepared to make the argument that Susan Rice, Gen. James Jones, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Andrew Bacevich are somehow more ideologically compatible with Cheney? Have at it.

actually i'm well prepared to fill you in on several things as usual.

first off you should familiarize yourself a little better on who exactly constitutes the POTUS' National Security Team. your list is all over the place.

1) Samantha Power is not even in the Office of the Executive much less a Cabinet member or an NSA, nor will she be.

2) Andrew Bacevich, a self described "Conservative", also a non-actor in the Executive as of yet, nor will he be in Obama's Cabinet.

furthermore...

3) Hillary Clinton voted for the war. and if it wasn't politically expedient to reject the war two years ago she'd still be a proponent. (she's a chameleon btw. a hawk when it serves her and a dove when it serves her) she voted twice authorizing the Patriot Act and has expressed mild support for the NSA wiretapping program.

4) Janet Napolitano was not opposed to the war. she's a staunch advocate of capital punishment...and she's a lesbian

5) Gen. James Jones. obvious.

6) Robert Gates...painfully obvious

equally conversely obvious idealogically though, Eric Holder and Susan Rice. nowhere near Cheney politically or philosophically. so you can have those two. i don't care for them in the least.

Last edited by Q5echo on Dec-31-2008 at 04:41

Apologies if I listed people who have the ear of the President-elect but aren't in his cabinet.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hardly. Cheney said they're qualified and then said he doesn't agree with them ideologically.

Interesting how you can't see the contradiction in your statement or the inaccuracies Q already pointed out.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov How in god's name is this thread-worthy? This sub-forum has really gone to shit.

The fact that the new administration is being endorsed by Cheney just goes to reflect the obvious once again, sadly predictable but it's something you learn to live with sooner or later. In their desperation, people will stop at nothing... and continue rallying behind figure heads with virtually the same policies (in terms of impact), just different semantics. In this case it was quite a spectacular display though, rarely do we see people project all their hopes and dreams on one man... it's also quite disturbing but history will be the best judge of that. And I agree, this forum has largely gone to shit which is why I'm not a regular anymore and in most likely hood will respond late if I think the user / post dignifies a response .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

"Conservative" = / = "Neoconservative"

This is hardly a ringing endorsement - or an endorsement at all really - so I still don't see the point. Power and Bacevich are key advisors to Obama, and as such are part of his team, so whatever "inaccuracy" Q is talking about is a matter of who you choose to include on his "team" - I don't think referring to the foreign policy team of a President should only include cabinet-level officials... after all, we all know that it was Perle and Wolfowitz (among others) who exerted the most influence on the disastrous foreign policy of Bush's first term.

There will be continuity between the last administration and the next because there always is. But to snipe a "pretty good" comment and link it to some extension of the neo-conservative agenda is both premature and completely naive.

Obama never ran as a foreign policy liberal - he's a pragmatist at heart. So the fact that there will be overlaps in policy is no surprise at all. But I can assure you that with people like Biden, Rice, Clinton, and Jones, this will be a far more balanced foreign policy team than Bush's was.

___________________

As a gesture of good will, Cheney has invited Obama on his next hunting trip.

I may have made that up.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.