Обама сформує "третю адміністрацію Клінтона"?
У американському виданні "Counterpunch" вийшла різко критична щодо Обами стаття Ральфа Нейдера, який був третім у президентській гонці, набравши щоправда як незалежний кандидат лише 700 тис. гол. Пік його пітримки був у виборах 2000 р. (2,9 млн. гол.), коли Нейдер був кандидатом від зелених, і його звинувачували у тому, що саме невеличкої кількості його виборців не вистачило у Флориді для перемоги Гора над Бушем (де перевага Буша склала 537 голосів), хоча інші аналітики доводили, що це не у його виборцях проблема.
В усякому разі, на тлі "обамоманії", стаття Нейдера – провокативний погляд на Обаму зліва. Одразу зазначу, що перемогу Обами я вважаю символом того, що демократія в США, попри всю справедливу її критику, працює, але цю критику принаймні треба знати.
The Third Clinton Administration
By RALPH NADER
While the liberal intelligentsia was swooning over Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, I counseled "prepare to be disappointed." His record as a Illinois state and U.S. Senator, together with the many progressive and long overdue courses of action he opposed during his campaign, rendered such a prediction unfortunate but obvious.
Now this same intelligentsia is beginning to howl over Obama's transition team and early choices to run his Administration. Having defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries, he now is busily installing Bill Clinton's old guard. Thirty one out of forty seven people that he has named so far for transition or appointments have ties to the Clinton Administration, according to Politico. One Clintonite is quoted in the Washington Post as saying – "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."
Obama's "foreign policy team is now dominated by the Hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990," writes Jeremy Scahill. Obama's transition team reviewing intelligence agencies and recommending appointments is headed by John Brennan and Jami Miscik, who worked under George Tenet when the CIA was involved in politicizing intelligence for, among other officials, Secretary of State Colin Powell's erroneous address before the United Nations calling for war against Iraq.
Mr. Brennan, as a government official, supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition to torturing countries. National Public Radio reported that Obama's reversal when he voted for the revised FISA this year relied on John Brennan's advise.
For more detail on these two advisers and others recruited by Obama from the dark old days, see Democracy Now, November 17, 2008 and Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet, Nov. 20, 2008 "This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House."
The top choice as White House chief of staff is Rahm Emanuel-the ultimate hard-nosed corporate Democrat, military-foreign policy hawk and Clinton White House promoter of corporate globalization, as in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.
Now, recall Obama's words during the bucolic "hope and change" campaign months: "The American people...understand the real gamble is having the same old folks doing things over and over and over again and somehow expecting a different result." Thunderous applause followed these remarks.
"This is more 'Groundhog Day' then a fresh start," asserted Peter Wehner, a former Bush adviser who is now at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
The signs are amassing that Barack Obama put a political con job over on the American people. He is now daily buying into the entrenched military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his farewell address.
With Robert Rubin on his side during his first photo opportunity after the election, he signaled to Wall Street that his vote for the $750 billion bailout of those speculators and crooks was no fluke (Rubin was Clinton's financial deregulation architect in 1999 as Secretary of the Treasury before he became one of the hugely paid co-directors tanking Citigroup.)
Obama's apologists say that his picks show he wants to get things done, so he wants people who know their way around Washington. Moreover, they say, the change comes only from the president who sets the priorities and the courses of action, not from his subordinates. This explanation assumes that a president's appointments are not mirror images of the boss's expected directions but only functionaries to carry out the Obama changes.
If you are inclined to believe this improbable scenario, perhaps you may wish to review Obama's record compiled by Matt Gonzalez at Counterpunch.
Блог автора – матеріал, який відображає винятково точку зору автора. Текст блогу не претендує на об'єктивність та всебічність висвітлення теми, яка у ньому піднімається. Редакція "Української правди" не відповідає за достовірність та тлумачення наведеної інформації і виконує винятково роль носія. Точка зору редакції УП може не збігатися з точкою зору автора блогу.
