November 20, 2008

WHAT, NO HUSSEINI'S IN THE CABINET?

Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet: Activists note that most of the candidates for top security posts voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq or otherwise supported launching the war. (Paul Richter, November 20, 2008, LA Times)

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War. [...]

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.


They should worry less about who these people are and more about what they are. It's an administration that pretty much needs a war in order to be taken seriously. The only real question is where they fight it. The Tribal Area is an easy call, but a bad ground war. Iran is a tough call, but an easy air war.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 20, 2008 9:02 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« DEFLATION IS GLOBAL, SYSTEMIC, AND DURABLE--"INFLATION" WAS A PRODUCT OF A DYSFUNCTIONAL OIL MARKET: | Main | THE LOOSE-LIPPED SHIP: »