What happened to Obama's promises?

What happened to Obama's promises? Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:24:48 GMT By Shirin Barghi, Press TV, Tehran

The Obama camp boasted of its intentions to bring change to America. Barack Obama's choice of giving top cabinet positions to sharp-tongued Washington insiders has so far signaled anything but 'the change we need'. During his presidential campaign, Obama grabbed headlines worldwide by outlining policies which were in stark contrast to those of his predecessors -- He promised to hold unconditional talks with Iran, to appoint a bipartisan administration, to work hard on reaching a peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis, to restore the US image and its relations with the Muslim world, and to end the Iraqi war. His recent selection of hawkish, partisan tough, Clinton retreads, however, raises questions as to whether the US president-elect has lost focus on the promises he made while on the stump. In the first hours after his decisive victory on November 5, Obama offered the White House chief of staff position to Rahm Emanuel, a practitioner of no-holds-barred politics with a long highly partisan reputation. The appointment has become the worst nightmare of the GOP and has hindered the prospect of bridging the gap between Democrats and Republicans. "This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center," says House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant says the Obama man of choice threatens previous promises of "healing divides". It is a well-known fact that the Israeli lobby has a longstanding and powerful "say" in US politics but what could better reinforce Tel Aviv's grip on Washington than the appointment of a pro-Israel Orthodox Jew educated at a Talmudic yeshiva, who served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)? The selection of Emanuel -- the son of an integral 1940s member of an Israeli terrorist group known as Menachem Begin's Irgun -- has fueled speculation that Obama has decided to sidestep his earlier promises and focus more on how to show an 'unshakable commitment to Tel Aviv'. The incoming Obama administration consists mainly of Democrats with a proven record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neo-liberal economic policies, and a gun-slinging mindset. Once Rahm was safely confirmed as the White House chief of staff, the US-president elect got down to work and laid out an assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice, James Jones and Joe Biden -- all of whom have a proven record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neo-liberal economic policies, and a gun-slinging mindset. Obama has repeatedly stressed that he had "opposed the Iraqi war at a time when it was politically risky" and thus distinguished himself from people like US President George W. Bush and Republican Senator John McCain. There is therefore an inevitable question that begs an answer: Why would a politician who has long taken pride in distancing himself from the policies of the Bush administration decide to pick the Democrats that passed the exact same judgment as Bush and McCain? Vice-President-elect Joe Biden and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton both supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and propagated the lies of the Bush administration about WMDs in Iraq and supposed Baghdad links with the al-Qaeda terrorist group. Susan Rice, Obama's pick for UN ambassador, claims she opposed the Iraq war. This may be right to some extent but does not change the facts about her hawkish stance on Darfur. Two years ago Rice co-authored an article advocating US attacks against Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. "If the United States fails to gain UN support, we should act without it," said the politician who will now push Washington politics at the world body. The Obama choice to keep Robert Gates as defense secretary and appoint James Jones as national security adviser is also definite to spurn his campaign promises of a 16-month timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. While Gates has vigorously defended George W. Bush's surge policy in the face of a rapid troop pullout, Jones has asserted that any withdrawal from Iraq "would be against US interest". After building a campaign largely on key foreign policy change, Barack Obama's pick of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the top US diplomat -- who will conduct diplomacy with Iran and make Israeli-Palestinian negotiations a priority -- seems downright uncanny. When Clinton was running against Obama for the Democratic nomination, not only did she describe Obama's pledge to meet with Iranian leaders as "irresponsible and naïve", she also threatened to "totally obliterate Iran" if the country uses nuclear weaponry against Israel -- which is not a member to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet has in its possession the ONLY nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. US President-elect Barack Obama (L), Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones (R) The former first lady spent a good eight years cultivating her pro-Israel constituency. "The United States stands with Israel, now and forever," she told AIPAC, the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby in America, at its conference in June. Her nomination as the point person in foreign policy is ironic and has shattered hopes that Obama may intend to 'change' the biased and double-standard Washington approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the 'biased' White House handling of Middle Eastern issues. Neoconservative leader and former McCain adviser Max Booth says Hillary Clinton would be a "powerful voice" for neo-liberalism -- which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservatism' -- while adding that he is "gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain." If that were not enough, how can one contemplate of a 'bi-partisan' Cabinet in Washington when the top foreign policy echelon is as Democrat is she can get? Although it is most evidently too soon to draw any conclusions on how the incoming administration would operate, the writing on the wall suggests that the Obama version of change will not necessarily lead US foreign policy in a more positive direction. Even so, when Barack Obama promised change, we took his word for it -- now the onus is on him to prove that we have unfortunately mistaken or have fortunately been correct. http://samotalis.blogspot/