Presidential advisors in economic, domestic, and foreign affairs.
Posted by Jesse on February 21, 2008
One of the most important aspects about each candidate is the people they surround themselves with. When I hear people talking about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I will admit, it is very frustrating to hear. ‘Experience’, ‘change’, Hello!! Can anybody say ‘establishment’!
One of Barack Obama’s advisors is Zbignew Brzezinski. There’s some real change.
Those of you who are supporting “change”, I say, good luck. A change in ‘attitude’ is nothing compared to changing ‘policy.’ Do you think law cares about attitude? Maybe your local police officer, jury, or judge. But that doesn’t stop the bombs. It doesn’t directly address war and corrupt institutions.
Here’s an interesting article on HuffingtonPost.com about the “difference” between the two Democratic candidates:
Hillary Heeds Hawks: How Obama’s and Clinton’s Advisors Mirror Their War Stands
The article contends that Hillary is much more disastrous than Obama. Although the article does highlight a few key points as to why Hillary’s advisors are highly questionable, it doesn’t make any effort to delve into why Obama’s advisors had different opinions in the matter. Itleaves the reader with a de facto sense of: ‘Obama’s got a good head on his shoulders.’ But what can we expect from an Obama administration? How will it be different from past administrations?
Here’s a very long transcript on the Charlie Rose show.
Charlie Rose interviews Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft
It’s quite good, an overwiew of eastern/western affairs, without any real details.
Brzezinski: The political awakening that is happening worldwide is a major challenge for America, because it means that the world is much more restless. It’s stirring. It has aspirations which are not easily satisfied. And if America is to lead, it has to relate itself somehow to these new, lively, intense political aspirations, which make our age so different from even the recent past.
Very first statement by Zbigniew in the intereview, and I would say that basically captures the ‘drive’ behind the Obama campaign. But what policies are we talking about here? What is Zbigniews grand vision? What have been the achievements or disasters in his own historical record?
Here is his very extensive wikipedia entry. Let’s see here: NSA, mujaheddin, CFR, Trilateral commission, expansion of NATO…
Wikipedia has Ron Paul’s Platforms here.
Ron Paul has some of his own advisors.
He is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[This is one of the five books Ron Paul asked Giuliani to read.]
An excerpt from Robert Pape’s “Dying to Kill Us” NYtimes article
How should democracies respond? In the past, they have tended to react with heavy military offensives, only to find that this tends to incite more attacks and to stir public sympathy for the terrorists without hampering their networks (this has clearly been the case in the West Bank and Chechnya). In their frustration, some terrorized countries have then changed tacks, making concessions to political causes supported by terrorists.
Yet this doesn’t work either: one likely reason suicide terrorism has been rising so rapidly in recent years is that terrorist groups have learned that the strategy pays off. Suicide terrorists were thought to compel American and French military forces to abandon Lebanon in 1983, Israeli forces to leave most of Lebanon in 1985, Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995, and the Turkish government to grant measures of autonomy to the Kurds in the late 1990’s. In all but the case of Turkey, the terrorists’ political cause made far greater political gains after they resorted to suicide operations.
When one considers the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, it becomes clear that America’s war on terrorism is heading in the wrong direction. The close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements shows the folly of any strategy centering on conquering countries that sponsor terrorism or in trying to transform their political systems. At most, occupying countries will disrupt terrorist operations in the short term. But over time it will simply increase the number of terrorists coming at us.”
Another addition to the Ron Paul Campaign is Peter Schiff. Read the short PPC Press Release.
[Scotthortonshow.com] [Google] [Lewrockwell.com]
He was on FOX predicting the housing bubble bursting. Of course these numb-nuts laugh at him. Anybody notice any similarities at the way they treat him and the way the pundits have treated Ron Paul? Who was right in the end?
There’s a review of Schiff’s book by Bob Murphy here
The point of all this is the fact that people do seem to want change. I think, as you will read in the Charlie Rose interview that there is a dramatic shift across the globe. It is critical we know what we want and how to get it. Those men, Kissinger and Brzezinski are doing what they have been doing for years: manipulating the situation. If you want real change than do not support these people.