RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Obama Is Bush Redux [$ Update]

Mind you, I received the following from a downcast Obama supporter and longtime pal who worked ’round the clock for Barack. Hey, we tried to warn these people, didn’t we, that he does not care about, or know about, policy. They dismissed us as racists and Republicans. No. Our candidate, Hillary Clinton, promised to end these terrible practices, and she, unlike he, meant it.

Expediency is the game plan because all Obama does care about is the campaign, the adulatory and fainting fans, and the big “O” he gets from winning, not the dictated drudgery of governance (which is why the incurious man didn’t know that Austrians don’t speak “Austrian”). The “high” is fleeting so he must keep campaigning, and it doesn’t matter if the screaming fans are Czech or American. His enormous ego requires enormous venues with enormous numbers of fans, and for that he requires enormous amounts of money, which come not from little people (myth) but from fat-cats like AIG’s top earners and, perchance, military contractors, perhaps ones with roots in Chicago? (SEE UPDATE BELOW.)

Despite Gitmo Closure and Torture Ban, Obama Admin Converges with Several Bush Policies in So-Called “War on Terror” (Democracy Now with video):

After a month in office, the Obama administration has surprised many of its supporters by embracing or appearing receptive to key parts of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy, from indefinite detention, to kidnapping and rendition, to invoking “state secrets” privileges. Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald joins The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer to discuss. [includes rush transcript]


What’s odd about my friend’s e-mail — I think he’s still my friend although I haven’t heard from him ever since No Quarter declared for Hillary and exposed Barack’s lack of qualifications and experience, as well as his dubious motives for seeking the presidency (actually, he had one motive, which was getting that cool title and perks like AF1) — is that this show aired in February, yet he only now is bringing himself to share this story.

However, this is hardly dated material. After all, yesterday, the hot e-mail circulating among the writers was this story: “Obama follows Bush policy on wiretapping.”

One friend who shared that story, wrote in his Subject title, “did I really read this?” In the body, he added, “i seriously hope i am hallucinating.”

From Democracy Now, here’s JANE MAYER on Obama’s strategy:

UPDATE: Writer Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the bestseller on Blackwater, told Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman on April 2nd that:

… I’m starting to call a series of pieces I’m doing “Operation Rebranded,” because what we’re seeing unfold with the Obama administration’s foreign policy is basically continuing many of the worst parts of Bush’s foreign policy and sort of repackaging these policies. So, for instance, the Obama administration has dropped the use of the term “global war on terrorism” and uses phrases like “contingency operations” to describe the US occupation of Iraq. The latest news we have is that the Obama’s administration has decided on its mercenary firm of choice. Clearly, Obama did not want to continue at least a public relationship with Blackwater. …

Scahill describes the company that OBAMA has hired to protect the huge embassy in Baghdad - a company that was founded in Chicago, Illinois:

Obama picked this firm Triple Canopy, which interestingly was founded in Chicago, in the home state of Barack Obama. And then in 2005, they changed their location to Herndon, Virginia, so that they’d be closer to the epicenter of US war contracting, though on the Israeli contract, that I’m going to talk about in a moment, they list their Lincolnshire, Illinois address as their primary address for the contract.

AMY GOODMAN: Who heads up Triple Canopy?

JEREMY SCAHILL: It was founded by former Special Forces operatives from the US Army. They were minor contributors to the Bush/Cheney campaign, but not real big political players. They clearly started the company as a result of the US invasion in Iraq. They started it in 2003. By 2004, they got one of the primary contracts in Iraq.

An interesting fact about Triple Canopy is that it was one of the big three US companies. Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and Blackwater shared this mother contract. Blackwater had the biggest share of it, to guard US officials in the Baghdad area. DynCorp had the north of Iraq. Triple Canopy had the south of Iraq.

Triple Canopy also, though, did a very lucrative business servicing other war contractors like KBR, and Triple Canopy was also known for being the company that brought in the largest number of so-called third country nationals, non-Iraqis, non-Americans. They hired, for instance, former Salvadoran commandos who were veterans of the bloody counterinsurgency war in El Salvador that took the lives of 75,000 Salvadorans, minimum. Chileans—they used the same recruiter, Jose Miguel Pizarro Ovalle, that Blackwater used when they hired Chileans. This was a former Pinochet military officer.

And this company has been around, you know, for five or six years. The Obama administration has hired them in Iraq, and many of the Blackwater guys are believed to be jumping over to Triple Canopy to continue working on in Iraq. Obama, though, is keeping Blackwater on, and the State Department has not ruled out that they’re going to stay on for much longer, the aviation division of Blackwater in Iraq, and also Blackwater is on the US government payroll in Afghanistan, also working for the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The news that I’m breaking on Triple Canopy, though, is that I obtained federal contracts that were signed in February and March by the Obama administration with Triple Canopy to act as a private paramilitary force operating out of Jerusalem. And this is also part of a very secretive State Department program called the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which was started under the Clinton administration as a privatized wing of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security division. Triple Canopy was paid $5 million in February, March by the Obama administration to provide, quote, “security services” in Israel.

In congressional testimony in 2007, Ambassador David Satterfield, who was an Under Secretary of State, said that he had been guarded by private security companies when he traveled in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Triple Canopy had the contract, has had this contract since 2005, the Obama administration continuing it.

I think that the Obama administration should be required to explain to US taxpayers, particularly with the atrocious human rights abuses that we’ve been seeing in Israel, why he’s using a US mercenary company to protect US officials when they potentially come in contact with civilians. And we’ve seen how deadly that’s been in Iraq. And before May 7th, his administration should be required to explain to the American people why he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are continuing the Bush administration’s policy of using deadly paramilitary forces in Iraq. …

There’s a point that needs to be made here: Scahill is a leftist who seems to oppose all private contractors, but as Larry Johnson and others have explained to me, the U.S. military hasn’t the manpower to guard all of the State Department’s facilities and personnel around the world. There’s nothing per se “evil” with hiring private contractors. It’s what they do on the job that matters. So President Obama and Secretary Clinton aren’t necessarily implementing “deadly paramilitary forces”; they are hiring people to protect staff and facilities.

THAT said, I am attempting to find out what this company — Triple Canopy — has donated to the Obama campaign.

I’m also looking up who is on the board of Triple Canopy. One recent addition is AOL founder Jim Kimsey.

… more to come …

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post40 Comments »

Comment by Arabella Trefoil | 2009-04-07 10:16:29

Where are the “What Obama Really Meant” people now?

 

Comment by eleana | 2009-04-07 10:20:15

Off Topic but Important:“I Am One Of Them”
Obama made an address to the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, Turkey. Al-Jazeera’s Anita McNaught, reporting from Istanbul, wrote: “This was the address we had all been waiting for, it hit all the right notes.”
“He talked about the contribution of the Islamic faith in the life of American Muslims and then he personalised that message by saying ‘I know because I am one of them.’ It was a message that reached out to many today” UPDATE:Al-Jazeera has since removed this section from the story sometime between the time they published it and now –

 

Comment by Tony | 2009-04-07 10:32:16

Not surprising. These people got themselves convinced that Bush & Co were some kind of power-mad dictators, and only implemented these plans b/c they were evil. These people only considered one side of the issue– the one they wanted to believe.

When Obama, or anyone else got into the office and saw the justifications, the legallities, etc. I always predicted they’d continue many of these policies.

 

Comment by Jackarooty | 2009-04-07 10:42:23

As I have said in previous posts, Obama wanted to BECOME President. He didn’t want to BE president. It reminds me of the young women I grew up with who wanted to GET married not necessarily BE married.

To quote his predecessor: “It’s hard work”. I think Barry realized that he was required to actually work…hard.

Comment by tony | 2009-04-07 11:24:17

ha!

they should call him the running man, cause thats all he’s ever done - run & campaign for his next job.

anyone else tired of seeing him on magazine covers yet (counted 7 yesterday)? Between speaking events, talk show appearances, final four picks, and talks of a basketball court behind the white house (sooo classy), someone needs to drag this guy by one of his big ears back to his desk (like a punk in middle school) and tell him to get to work.

“To quote his predecessor: “It’s hard work””

yep… and as he wastes time prancing around the world and soaking up the attention, jobs are going under, families are losing their homes, and Nancy & Co. are racking up a debt that looks like something out of a science fiction novel.

berry better damn well get to work and start earning his pay!!

Comment by SusanUnPC | 2009-04-07 11:47:59

The “running man” — that’s a great phrase.

 
 
 

Comment by Arabella Trefoil | 2009-04-07 11:03:34

Obama is already bored with being president. Now he wants the whole wide world to love him and applaud him.

I think he will be too exhausted and bored to finish out his term. Maybe he needs to retreat to Bali while Flag Dancer ghost writes another book for him.

I haven’t noticed any commercials for Obama memorabilia lately. Has the market been saturated?

Comment by zygodactyl | 2009-04-07 12:00:33

I saw a “commemorative plate” in the markdown bin at Walgreen’s last week. $5 now.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-07 12:06:19

Yeah and if you go to HSN.Com they’re having a fire sale on the stupid ass Obama watches.

 
 
 

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-07 11:13:10

I think many uninformed voters, desperate for a change from the Bush-Cheney years, were highly susceptible to the faux-campaign promises that Obama-Axelrod offered.

It was showmanship ratched up to the 10th degree. Add to that, we can repair our racial history and wounds by electing a black man, who talks about hope and change and makes the public feel good, and then people, primarily the young and gullible, swooned. Add a gazillion bucks from high-powered supporters, strong-arm tactics behind the scenes, throw in some election fraud but keep that music pumping, the dream swirling and the MSM writing those choir pieces.

And this is what we get.

I read a statement the other day by a student in Prague, who heard Obama speak. He said Obama’s words were beautiful, but that he knew [from his own experience] that the world’s enemies, the ones that Obama was eager to reach across the table to were murderous thugs.

This is not reality-based. And having a smooth-talking actor in the WH is dangerous.

The real pity is that we had an authentic alternative in Hillary Clinton. We had a leader in John McCain. What we settled for was The Great Pretender. And now, we’re all going to pay the price.

Comment by lilytoo | 2009-04-07 11:25:39

 

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-07 14:50:07

The real pity is that we had an authentic alternative in Hillary Clinton. We had a leader in John McCain. What we settled for was The Great Pretender. And now, we’re all going to pay the price.

You got that right, Peggy Sue.

Comment by James | 2009-04-07 14:58:29

Agreed. Fad loving America picks the loser again, like they did with Bush in 2000 and 2004. You’re not a Bush supporter, are yo?

Comment by Docelder | 2009-04-07 15:06:52

You’re not a Bush supporter

In 2004… guilty. But consider the alternative in Mr. Heinz before you make value judgements. It’s not like there was a lot of choice was there.

Comment by James | 2009-04-07 15:09:07

Uh.. Kerry, okay, you have a point. But there are other options: vote 3rd party or stay home. 2004 was an election of choosing the lesser of two “Who Cares?”.

 
 

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-07 15:16:40

I still don’t get why people are bringing up Bush. We’re past that and it’s ridiculous. You can’t even compare Obama to Bush. Apples and Oranges. No I didn’t vote for Bush, either time. But I also didn’t vote to subject my country to Gore or Kerry who I have zero faith in.

Comment by James | 2009-04-07 15:26:10

It’s important to understand why Americans continue to elect presidents that they would like to hang out with instead of people who can actually govern. There are interesting parallels between Bush and Obama, some of which have been discussed on NQ.

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-04-07 18:32:29

On this I think you’re absolutely correct, James.

Republicans would like to forget that they had presidential and congressional power for six lo-o-og years. They’ll point to the two+ years the Dems controlled Congress. The Dems would like to blame everything on Bush&Co, without acknowledging the last two years of their own congressional majority.

Both parties are to blame! And any voter who is willing to vote merely on the “likeability factor” can be blamed even more.

Was Gore a Superstar? No. But I think he would have made a credible POTUS, and I don’t think we would have gone to Iraq, which [regardless of all the post-war excuses] was nuts.

Was Kerry a viable alternative to Bush? No, and that’s why he lost. So, the Dems took power of Congress in 2007. Did they make things better. No. They made it worse and are now turning a bad situation into a mega disaster.

I remember hearing Pelosi crow that she was so-o-o proud that she had blocked every single piece of legislation in the last Bush years. As bad as Bush was, he sent up a warning flare about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Did Congress respond? No, the Dems were so sure they had the high road, they turned off their ears to anything and everything. Barney Frank came out and sang tributes to Fannie and Freddie a month before they went bellyup. And then tried to say he didn’t.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!

And Chris Dodd makes up stories like there’s no tomorrow, after taking favors from Countrywide and being on the AIG take.

Were Republicans guilty, too? Absolutely.

We have a mess now. It goes across party lines and political affiliations. We have a Secretary of the Treasury who couldn’t even pay his damn taxes and seems hell bent on protecting his banking “chums.”

Who is to blame? Everyone, policos and financial experts alike.

It’s time to blink and gasp and tell the truth. Otherwise, we’re all lost. And then, party affiliation won’t mean a fig because we’ll all be going over the cliff together.

It’s time to start screaming back at this insanity.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by lilytoo | 2009-04-07 11:24:33

I’m not impressed that “Democracy Now” is finally waking up….or am I confident they will remain so. Amy Goodman is way too smart not to have known exactly what Barry was and is . Yet they were purple with the kool-aid for over a year. Ugh

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2009-04-07 11:47:33

I remember finding Democracy Now about three years ago and being excited that it existed– “oh my, I thought, a news source really dedicated to grass root democracy and social justice..” and then the Obama came and Democracy Now started not looking too good anymore. That kool-aide is powerful, powerful stuff. Perhaps it’s the artifical sweetener in it that messed with so many’s minds.
I hope Democracy Now starts caring about democracy again. I can’t stand to watch anymore… I’ll just wait to hear what you folks say about it.

Comment by inconsiderable wretch | 2009-04-07 13:12:42

Also it comes in various flavors and forms to appeal to the widest possible range of users, each pusher choosing the most suitable for his/her potential clientele.

 
 

Comment by trixta | 2009-04-07 14:18:58

Dennis Bernstein on at KPFA (Berkeley station) has done critical reports on Obama, etc. From the few reports I’ve heard, he hadn’t drunk so much of the Kool-Aid. (I stopped listening to KPFA [Pacifica] for a while, especially during the primaries and the GE.) Also, KPFA’s afternoon news actually had a critical report on Obama’s military surge in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, still too many on the Left refuse to see (or admit to) what’s in front of them — Obama as GWB rebranded for the Left.

BTW, wasn’t it Jeromy Skahill who said on CSpan that “we might disagree with Obama on some issues, but the important thing is to focus on the hope he inspires” (I’ve paraphrased is quote). I guess Jeromy is singing another tune now.

 
 

Comment by avwrobel | 2009-04-07 11:26:43

On a related topic, Maureen Dowd had a column in the NYTimes toay and it seems she’s starting to fully wake up more to what a fraud Obambi is, even if she’s still being a bit ’sucky’ to maintain access to sources in his admin. As the liberal press begins to wake up more to the fact that Obambi is an intellectual mediocrity they’ll start to turn on him. Their intellectual realization that they’ve been had will creep into their writing.

Comment by Arabella Trefoil | 2009-04-07 11:41:47

What did she say? I refuse to read her columns.

Vanity Fair (which I used to love until it became an Obama propaganda arm) has an interesting issue out this month. Three letters to the editor complaining about Obama being on the cover (AGAIN) and a long article by Wolcott about the talking heads. Also an interesting article about Limbaugh and his aging audience.

I used to love Wolcott until he drank the koolade.

This (Dowd’s column, VF) is the beginning of a new dynamic, but it’s a subtle one. Are the talking head going to turn on one another or gang up against Obama?

Comment by avwrobel | 2009-04-07 12:51:52

I used to love Dowd when she was killing Bush/Cheney but when she went into the tank for Obambi and against Hillary I banned her from my mind. But recently, as Obambi’s flaws are exerting themselves, some writers are letting criticism out. She does a nice job of analysing how Precious enages a conversation without committing to any view.

Comment by Elizabeth | 2009-04-07 13:34:22

OTOH, if you read it closely enough, Obama WAS (almost) always out of his element on the national stage through the eyes of Dowd: “testy,” “irritated,” “conflicted,” “glass jawed” and lazy. She was the loudest one out there insisting his temperament was too cool and passive to defeat Clinton in the primaries and making the same mistake all over with McCain in the general election.

But Ms. Dowd’s obsession with fleeting superficiality apparently never ends and the dream of a cool, smart, elegant black man in the White House was too much for the apperance lover to overcome.

 
 
 
 

Comment by avwrobel | 2009-04-07 11:27:14

On a related topic, Maureen Dowd had a column in the NYTimes today and it seems she’s starting to fully wake up more to what a fraud Obambi is, even if she’s still being a bit ’sucky’ to maintain access to sources in his admin. As the liberal press begins to wake up more to the fact that Obambi is an intellectual mediocrity they’ll start to turn on him. Their intellectual realization that they’ve been had will creep into their writing.

 

Comment by I'm a Linda too | 2009-04-07 11:27:48

Another thing we knew he would be doing.

…as some tried to be “hopeful”, we knew his speeches and claims, leaving open ends, only meant this was what he would be DOING.

You only have to pay attention to what Weary Barry has consistently said, then done, to know what he is made of and what he will do.

He confirmed it again when he voted to give telecomm immunity, after grandstanding and claiming he would FILIBUSTER any attempts for immunity. Sorry, but this makes me want to laugh at his supporters. How much proof do they need to smack them in the face while he’s telling them to bend over. This takes the word NAIVE to an entire new level.

Comment by candymarl | 2009-04-07 13:26:50

Hillary promised to vote against it. She did. Who wants a leader like that? Oh wait….

Comment by Scout | 2009-04-07 16:08:15

Right, and then his supporters cried that she voted no to “make 0bama look bad.” God, what idiots.

He revealed his lying character over and over. And millions of people ignored it, including most in the media.

 
 
 

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2009-04-07 11:43:03

So when Mr. Obama finally self combusts like a character in a Monty Python sketch, what will happen next? Then we’re going to get Biden? Biden, Biden, Bueller, Bueller? Cry the beloved country, indeed. How many have to succumb to nervous exhaustion before we get Hillary?

 

Comment by I'm a Linda too | 2009-04-07 11:52:13

UPDATE: Writer Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the bestseller on Blackwater, told Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman on April 2nd that:

… I’m starting to call a series of pieces I’m doing “Operation Rebranded,” because what we’re seeing unfold with the Obama administration’s foreign policy is basically continuing many of the worst parts of Bush’s foreign policy and sort of repackaging these policies.

YEP!!!

 

Comment by inconsiderable wretch | 2009-04-07 13:16:35

I certainly hope your assessment is accurate.

 

Comment by trixta | 2009-04-07 14:30:20

I repeat, wasn’t it Jeremy Scahill who said on CSpan that “we might disagree with Obama on some issues, but the important thing is to focus on the hope he inspires” (quote paraphrased here). I guess Jeremy is singing another tune now.

With regard to some on the Left waking up — I heard Bill Maher was critical of Obama on his show two weeks ago. I don’t know what he said (I heard about it on a blog post), but wonder if Bill is beginning to realize what we all have deduced about Obama from the outset — that BO is GWB rebranded and a fraud.

Comment by I'm a Linda too | 2009-04-07 14:46:45

Then it sounds like any supporter or hopeful supporter is seeing what Obama really is.

…it should also tell them how naive THEY are and they don’t pay attention to the real issues and should STAY OUT OF POLIICS.

…Bill Maher didn’t like Obama laughing about legalizing pot-no doubt. That and PETA are his pet projects.

 

Comment by cynic | 2009-04-07 16:11:26

Those holding extremely negative views of Barack Obama often miss the fact that supporting him doesn’t necessarily imply total, across-the-board approval. Support is a matter of weighing things in the balance. There are both pluses and minuses, separated to either side of the scale.

It’s only natural that supporters would become more outspoken about the perceived minuses in a post-election environment.

Comment by I'mFedUp | 2009-04-07 16:16:56

Not true, cynic. The people that are sitting on their asses doing nothing are equally dangerous to America. Doing nothing and just sort of seeing how far he can take this country into the gutter really isn’t positive. Those with passion and love for America are going out to take action, just like our forefathers did. There are no pluses to Obama, none. And let me say this…I have never given a CRAP about who won as far as thinking they were dangerous to my country. I had no problem with when one party or another lost. Okay, fine, some feelings were hurt, some people alleged cheating, whatever. This isn’t sour grapes, or a bunch of Republicans being POd that the Dems pulled the worst voter fraud in history to steal the election. No, this has come down to being American and doing damage control so that a very sick individual is removed from the White House before it’s too late.

 
 
 

Comment by Ginger | 2009-04-07 14:34:52

From TGW soon after the FISA vote:

Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

MyDD has Hillary’s full statement and the FISA vote tally. Here’s an excerpt:

“There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens - and in particular to New Yorkers - all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used - and used within the law - for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.”

Comment by Scout | 2009-04-07 16:14:20

On the one hand, I wish Hillary was still in the Senate because we need her there more than ever.

On the other, I am glad (at least so far) that she is at State and can’t be associated with B0s power grabbing domestic policies.

 
 

Comment by Diana L. C. | 2009-04-07 15:32:17

I am guessing that most people in the MSM, knowing the short memory spans of most Americans, will wait until they think most people don’t remeber how they fawned over our new “Messiah.” They will never, never admit how duped they were. They will pretend there was no way to predict how O would turn out, that they had nothing to do with him being in office.

And the public will say, “O.K., then we couldn’t have known either.”

Makes me sick!

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)