Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in Mainstream, Praises Bush’s Appointments

By

The one thing that Barack Obama seems to try to push is his judgment, he uses this to offset thoughts that he is too green and lacks the experience with his brief time in the Senate.  So, let’s discuss his judgment.

The Huffington Post reports that on January 17th, 2001, three days before Donald Rumsfeld’s confirmation to George Bush’s administration, Barack Obama gives credit and praises Bush’s appointments.  Obama says that he thought that Rumsfeld was in the mainstream of American, quote from his appearance on “Chicago Tonight”, emphasis mine:

“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees,” Obama said. “I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don’t think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.

Oh yes, there is video too.  I’ll try to get an embedded version out at some point.

[Update] Video is up.

There was a recent post about whether Obama has been adequately vetted.  My question is that has he been vetted at all?  If you take some of his stances on health care and other conservative frames, in my judgment this is rather disturbing.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. That’s all I needed to see.  No Obama vote from me.  I doubt that Hillary would have said the same of Rummy for all to review at a later date (I think she’s too smart and experienced at campaigning for that), but I could be wrong.  Anybody know if she did the same thing?  

    • I believe that she voted to confirm Rumsfeld.  I don’t think that amounts to all that much; it was pre-9/11.  If either of these guys defended Rumsfeld in 2006, then I would worry.

        • Had any prominent Dem had a major problem with him, that Senator could have forced a roll-call vote.  Because this guy was so entrenched in Washington, Senators likely didn’t want to waste their time fighting him.  Pity.  If I recall, though, we were all (R’s and D’s) so shell-shocked after the Florida debacle that all anyone was talking about was healing the rift.  And if I recall, Ashcroft was the one cabinet appointment people really opposed.  

        • did she go on ABC, CBS or NBC and say the equivalent of what Obama did?  That’s what I’d like to know.

    • He was trying to counterpoint his concerns about John Ashcroft by pointing out that his criticisms weren’t blind and partisan.

      <

      p>Now, it’s somewhat ironic that Ashcroft comes across as almost a hero after the whole hospital bed confrontation, but let’s remember he only looks good b/c his successors were even worse, which is impressive.

      <

      p>So Obama isn’t clairvoyant.  Find me someone who in early 2001 warned that Rumsfeld (or Cheney, for that matter) were going to turn out the way they did.

      • and that person is me.  I think I still have the signs in my garage that say “NO TO RUMSFELD” and “NO TO A**CROFT”.  I don’t consider myself clairvoyant.  So, if I knew from my excursions into reading history what direction they would take us, I would assume others would have known as well.    

  2. up to that point had been the head of the DoD under Ford, Ford’s Chief of Staff, served 4 terms in the US House, was the ambassador to NATO, and received the Medal of Freedom in 1977. NutraSweet got its FDA approval under Rumsfelds watch working for Searl. In 2001, you could reasonably argue that for a Republican administration, Rumsfeld was fairly mainstream. Ford was more moderate than Reagan. Rumsfeld had business, diplomatic, congressional and DoD experience. He was a known quantity. He was, yes, in the rightwing part of the mainstream. Does that mean Obama agreed with him? No. Does that mean Obama likes what Rumsfeld has done since? No. But let’s have a little historical context.

    <

    p>If anything, Rumsfeld proves that just having a great resume doesn’t mean much without the right perspective.

    • I agree entirely.  I don’t recall anyone saying anything different about Rumsfeld, Cheney, or any of them for that matter.  It seemed that everyone was impressed with the highly “experienced” team that Bush brought in.  If anything the main point of criticism was that Bush was the weak link in his own White House.  But as we would soon learn, experience does not mean competence.  

    • Come on, it’s not just one thing Obama’s done that really casts doubt into how well he’ll mesh with progressives and liberals. If it isn’t Purple America, it’s Social Security. If it’s not Liquid Coal, now it’s Rumsfeld. If it’s not any of that, it’s him propping up preachers who have anti-gay ministries (to be “cured”) or who preach about how people like me are going to hell because of the way we were born (and I’m sorry, but Barack Obama can’t have it both ways on that issue).

      <

      p>I’ll tell you one thing, if you expect him to go into office and be any more left-wing than Hillary Clinton, I think you’re fooling yourself. This video has certainly helped me feel a little bit better about my decision to be leaning toward Hillary. She’ll probably frustrate me enormously – and I’m sure progress will be very incremental – but at least I have some expectations as to what she’ll do in office. This is a shocking development to me considering, 3-4 months ago, I probably would have privately made fun of a glbt or progressive person who thought Hillary was the best option. Now I’m sure of it.

      • This gets to the core of it:

        I’ll tell you one thing, if you expect him to go into office and be any more left-wing than Hillary Clinton, I think you’re fooling yourself.

        <

        p>I can’t remember when I’ve talked about Obama’s candidacy in terms of “left and right.” I know I’ve said that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, has a 100% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters, how he has a commitment to open systems and transparent government unparalleled by other candidates, firmly supports network neutrality, and actively campaigned in South Dakota against the proposed ban on abortion. I’ve talked with friends, and I probably let it slip here, that I think he’s a progressive specifically because because he looks forward and probably wouldn’t govern by strict ideology. It’s not just that he’s inspirational & transformational, it’s that he represents an emerging style of politics unlike what we see in the Bush years or saw in the Clinton years.

        <

        p>I can’t think of a President with whom I’ve agreed all the time. My personal favorite President of the 20th century is FDR, for a whole host of reasons. But there are many issues on which he and I would disagree were I alive back then (not the least is sending Jews back to Europe even though they were within sight of America). I really do respect President Clinton and I probably would have supported him in the primary in 1992. But I disagree with him on many aspects of NAFTA or some of his foreign policy. The question, for me, of what makes a “great” president has never been about left or right, or even specific policy positions or individual decisions made in a microcosm of time. It’s about what the leader’s overall vision is; it’s about where he or she can take this country and how the President will prepare us for what’s next. It’s about whether that President believes in open or closed government, and whether he engages us as citizens and treats us with respect. It’s not about bringing us to the left (although Obama would almost certainly be more leftwing than any president since Carter), but about bringing us forward–together.

        • You support policies coming out of the progressive camp, right? From health care to clean energy, I’d say they’re at least left of the Republican Party.

          <

          p>And, honestly, I don’t disagree with you in total.

          <

          p>It’s about what the leader’s overall vision is; it’s about where he or she can take this country and how the President will prepare us for what’s next.

          • I clicked post instead of quote. I’m going to repost this and finish it.

            <

            p>You support policies coming out of the progressive camp, right? From health care to clean energy, I’d say they’re at least left of the Republican Party.

            <

            p>And, honestly, I don’t disagree with you in total.

            <

            p>

            It’s about what the leader’s overall vision is; it’s about where he or she can take this country and how the President will prepare us for what’s next.

            <

            p>I agree with you – and that candidate was, to me, John Edwards. Yet, in leau of a candidate who has a fundamental vision that could bring about restoration in America, at least  on big picture issues, I’m going to go with the person who’s better when it comes to policies, who has more experience and who, honestly, I trust more to be a competent President. Obama’s said far too much for me to trust him to be a true progressive, his appeal is too far to the right to ever bring this country where it needs to be – and his rhetoric too soft to stand up to the interests that keep us from succeeding on our core issues.

  3. All he was saying that he was in the mainstream of American political life, meaning that he was a major American political figure. He could have said the same thing about Dick Cheney who had been SoD himself and a Congressmen like Rumsfeld. He could have said the same thing about Sen. Ted Kennedy who had been a Senator for several decades or even Strom Thrumond. They were all in the mainstream of political life in the sense that they were all involved in national politics for a really long time.

    <

    p>There views might not be mainstream but thats not what Obama was saying.

    <

    p>And to be fair what Rumsfeld promised at confirmation hearings and what he actually did were two very different things. If you recall he promised to reduce the armys reliance on platforms, actually cut and gut the majority of the DoDs new proposals, and streamline the military i.e cut its budget so that it could fight smaller wars. He revved up special forces in his first budget and cut everything else. It was only after 9/11 that he began building the military needed to wage war with Iraq, one of the reasons the planning was so poor was because Rumsfeld had built a smaller army, brilliantly suited for invasion but poorly suited for occupation. Why nobody employed the Powell Doctrine is beyond me.  

        • At some point, when Obama has to constantly be defended on things from Social Security Right Wing Talking Points to Liquid Coal to propping up homophobic preachers to score political points, it becomes tough to explain them away. That was my point and I think it a valid one.

          • is that you are so obsessed with hate for the right wing (see: hypocrisy), that when anyone has anything even marginally good to say about anything right-wing related, you turn off in an instant.  Obama talks about Reagan.  Reagan Bad.  Obama Bad.  Obama makes, in its context, a rather accurate statement about Rumsfeld.  Rumsfeld bad.  Obama bad.  John Edwards smashes big corporations between bleeding people as a lawyer and $400 haircuts.  Big corporations bad.  Edwards good.  

            <

            p>At some point you’re going to have to accept that just because have a difference of opinion with you doesn’t make then some political opposite of you.

            <

            p>I admire Joe Biden’s honesty (since his little plagiarism thing) and his long, dedicated service to his country.  

            <

            p>I admire Ted Kennedy’s consisted record and his ability to keep himself together in a life that would emotionally crush me.

            <

            p>I admire Hillary’s gutso and her lack of timidity.  

            <

            p>I’m not a left wing extremist nor do I espouse left wing talking points, but sometimes you have to call stuff the way it is, no matter how much it hurts to say it.

            • Obama’s statements, to me, have been carefully calculated. His big stump – on Purple America, bipartisanship, etc. – isn’t just something I agree with. It’s anathema to my very being, almost completely the opposite of my political ideology.

              <

              p>When I jumped aboard the John Edwards express, I was very reluctant at first. It wasn’t an easy process. It took me a long time to get there. Why? Because Edwards ’04 spoke to a great many things that I wasn’t a great fan of. Furthermore, while I supported him up until he bowed out, it was only in place of someone who I’d have truly supported – like Al Gore, or someone of that nature. So it’s not as if I had some sort of absolute devotion directed toward the former Senator. He was just the only candidate in the race speaking to my issues. That’s all there is to it.

              <

              p>So I really don’t see the inconsistencies. Obama’s said a lot of things that I profoundly disagree with, while I was never entirely high on Edwards. If you go back and read my BMG and Ryan’s Take posts, the evidence will bear both facts out.

  4. The many truths we cling to depend on our point of view.

    <

    p>Having read-skeptically- that article on conservative “frames”, I find that these are points in Obama’s favor.

    • First thing he did in 2005 was become Lieberman’s freshman.  He voted to “go along” with the President on all that war funding.  He had to be embarrassed into taking the right stance on coal.  He’s clearly fluid and ready to compromise if it is in his political interest.

      <

      p>The Clintons were very much about changing Washington, D.C., back in 1992, but Washington fought back hard to constrain them, and the way they resuscitated their popularity was to make compromises and work within those constraints.  Obama’s only just beginning to get a taste of the Clinton Rules that Washington’s media apply to Big Democrats.

      <

      p>I’m not really sure there’s much difference between them, in terms of the results they will deliver to the people.

      • Remember that coal mining is a major part of the Illinois economy. With regard to the coal gasification, he listened to what the environmental community had to say about this and changed his position accordingly. For this he was given a lot of credit by environmental leaders. This is the stuff of democracy. A good leader is one who will listen to a range of positions.

        • He got caught and changed his position. That’s how the vast majority of people here saw it then – and how I see it now. I can remember some pretty good BMG posts on that topic, actually.

          • If the politician you like changes his or her position, it’s called being flexible, and it’s a good thing.
            If you don’t like him or her it’s called getting shamed, and it’s bad.
            One could just as easily be cynical about John Edwards motives for changing all of his positions after leaving the Senate and preparing for a presidential run. Others are, I’m not.
            I don’t think it’s helpful to dissect a politicians motives for doing this or that. Motives are complex and difficult to read. Let’s look at the evolution of their record and what they have said over a period of time.  

            • being Obama changed it overnight, when people caught on to the coal. Edwards went through a long process where he clearly was a different candidate and person. Is that a double standard? I don’t think so. He, in many cases, admitted he was wrong and moved forward doing the right thing. Obama heard the fits people were and merely shifted his position. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he did so, but when it happens overnight during the midst of a presidential campaign, pardon me for my skepticism.

              <

              p>I don’t expect any candidate to be perfect, or even without some hypocrisy. However, I’ve pointed this out over and over again – if it’s not liquid coal, it’s social security. If it’s not either of those policies, it’s his boasting support for glbt communities while propping up anti-gay preachers, who try to “cure” gay people. I’m just not buying.

      • you were hallucinating.  I don’t need a messiah, I need a President who won’t eff things up, and can clean up existing eff ups.

        <

        p>I’m voting for Hillary.

  5. Marc Ambinder reported in The Atlantic.com:
    Clinton Defends Iran Vote In Iowa Mailer

    <

    p>

    20 Oct 2007 09:14 pm
    In an unusual campaign mailing sent to voters in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton defends her vote in favor of the so-called “Lieberman-Kyl” resolution on Iran, calling it a “vote for stepped up diplomacy” and not permission for the Bush Administration to invade the country.
    -snip
    That Clinton takes pains to explain the Lieberman-Kyl vote, which declared Iraq’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and linked the structure of U.S troop presence in the Middle East in part to the Iranian threat, suggests that the Edwards-Obama charges have gelled, if only a bit.

    Here is the mailing, as provided by Marc Ambinder:

    For back up, HRC provides: http://marcambinder.theatlanti…
    Note: HRC leans on the words of Sen. Dick Durbin, the senior Senator of Illinois and supporter of an Obama Presidency. I personally find it heartening that Sen. Durbin does not rubber stamp the Obama Campaign. Although it is inconvenient for Barack, I know he is glad that Dick Durbin is candid, when so much is at stake. Barack Obama is not interested in parrots, echoing his political opinions. I feel very certain that Sen. Durbin has never been accused of being any sort of parrot.

    <

    p>Mrs.Clinton, New York’s junior Senator,  says that she fought hard against, what she called  “disturbing language” in the first draft of Lieberman-Kyl. Noteworthy, but it seems that Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has some nagging concerns regarding different “disturbing language”. Sen. Webb was concerned to the point that he cast his vote – NAY.

    <

    p>

    Mr. WEBB: Mr. President, I would like to express my concern about amendment No. 3017, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which among other things-and most troubling-would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I think we all have a great deal of concern about the activities of Iran. We as a nation have stood strongly and will continue to speak strongly about those activities. We have taken no options off the table. I fully support all of those precepts. At the same time, I do not believe that any serious student of American foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.
    -snip
    That is not what this amendment is about. The first concern I have, when we are talking about making the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, is, who actually defines a terrorist organization? The Congress, to my knowledge, has never defined a terrorist organization. The State Department defines terrorist organizations.
    -snip
    The second concern I have is that we as a government have never identified an organization that is a part of a nation state as a terrorist organization. From the statement of the Senator from Connecticut yesterday, there are potentially 180,000 people in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who are part of a military force of an existing state. Categorizing this organization as a terrorist organization is not our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is for all practical purposes mandating the military option. It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war.
    What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.     What is a terrorist organization? Traditionally, we have defined a terrorist organization as a nongovernmental  entity that operates along the creases of international law and does harm to internationally protected people.
    By the way, it is kind of interesting to note that last week the Iraqi Government claimed that Blackwater is a terrorist organization for the way it operates inside Iraq. I am not making that allegation. I am giving an example of how people categorize these groups.

    <

    p>I guess a prudent candidate or “any serious student of American foreign policy” would try to persuade voters towards this. I guess?

    <

    p>Oh, and how ’bout these words from the mailing: “Several weeks ago, I voted with 75 other Senators”

    <

    p>Naw she didn’t. OH! YES SHE DID!
    She just ran for safety and is trying to blend in with the CROWD.

    <

    p>That is true LEADERSHIP!

    • U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran

      By Robin Wright
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Thursday, October 25, 2007; 10:19 AM
      The Bush administration announced an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism.
      The package, announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country’s military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and included a call for other countries and firms to stop doing business with three major Iranian banks.
      -snip
      Rice said the United States is “committed to a diplomatic solution” to the tension between Washington and Tehran, but also wants to “increase the costs to Iran” unless it cooperates with the international community on terrorism and proliferation.
      The announced measures will help protect the international financial system, she said, and provide “a powerful deterrent” to those who do or are considering doing business with Iran.
      The move caps a year of growing U.S. pressure on Tehran, including billions of dollars in arms sales to Persian Gulf allies and Israel, interception of Iranian arms shipments in Iraq and Afghanistan, detention of Iranian agents in Iraq, and pressure on the United Nations and European allies to increase Iran’s isolation. The dramatic U.S. steps underscore the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran.
      “The policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world, because the combination of Iranian terrorism, Iranian repression at home and the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology — technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon — is a very dangerous mix,” Rice said yesterday in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
      -snip
      The Quds Force, the foreign operations branch of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, will be designated separately as a supporter of terrorism under Executive Order 13224, which Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding, U.S. officials said. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorism.
      The Quds Force — “Quds” is Arabic for Jerusalem — is estimated to number up to 15,000 and runs Tehran’s covert activities throughout the Middle East, including arms, aid and training for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. U.S. officials say that it has provided the high-tech bombs capable of penetrating armored vehicles and the roadside explosives that are the No. 1 killer of U.S. forces in Iraq.
      Although Iran’s suspected weapons programs have been a longtime problem for the United States, the Quds Force’s operations in Iraq have become a bigger immediate challenge. “The Quds Force controls the policy for Iraq,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said earlier this month. “There should be no confusion about that.”
      -snip
      In a speech Sunday, Vice President Cheney warned Tehran of “serious consequences” if it continues on its present course. “Our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions,” he said.
      The United States hopes that allies in Europe and Asia will impose similar sanctions, because efforts to get a tough U.N. resolution have stalled as a result of Russian and Chinese opposition. “The international community’s got to get a lot tougher if it’s going to be resolved diplomatically,” Rice said about Iran’s suspected nuclear program.

      <

      p>Senator Obama on Bush Announcement on Iran Sanctions
      By Sam Graham-Felsen – Oct 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm EDT
      Senator Obama responds to the Bush administration’s announcement on Iran sactions:

      It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran – a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.

      <

      p>Rice gives Fox the greenlight to spread FEAR

      “The policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world, because the combination of Iranian terrorism, Iranian repression at home and the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology — technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon — is a very dangerous mix,” Rice said yesterday in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

      The only “true” democracy is in danger. Enter the Knights Templars!

      The Quds Force — “Quds” is Arabic for Jerusalem — is estimated to number up to 15,000 and runs Tehran’s covert activities throughout the Middle East, including arms, aid and training for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  U.S. officials say that it has provided the high-tech bombs capable of penetrating armored vehicles and the roadside explosives that are the No. 1 killer of U.S. forces in Iraq.

      Iran = Iraq = WAR

      Although Iran’s suspected weapons programs have been a longtime problem for the United States, the Quds Force’s operations in Iraq have become a bigger immediate challenge. “The Quds Force controls the policy for Iraq,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said earlier this month. “There should be no confusion about that.”

      Cheney = WAR!

      In a speech Sunday, Vice President Cheney warned Tehran of “serious consequences” if it continues on its present course. “Our country and the entire international community cannot stand by  as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions,” he said.

    • Obama is on the record as “not voting” on Kyl-Lieberman.  He made a statement against the resolution but didn’t vote himself.  Maybe because his good pal Lieberman was one of the sponsors.  Is this leadership?

      <

      p>Today I read that some of his “present” votes in Illinois were also suspect, according to Huffington Post’s Taylor Marsh.  It seems a few of them were on abortion rights legislation.  The “strategy” of voting present was not a legislative one but a political one designed  to cover for senators in conservative districts.

      <

      p>These examples are part of what I find troubling about Obama’s “bi-partisanship” – it’s more like duck and cover and go along to get along.  Not exactly a change from the old ways.

      <

      p>Like Ryan, I am/was an Edwards supporter.  I have spent the day researching both Clinton and Obama and am still sitting firmly on the fence.  I have trust issues with both of them.  Maybe tonight’s debate will help.

      • Obama was busy on the campaign trail when that vote came up.  And in his world, Hillary’s mistake was in not ignoring your job and shafting your constituents.

  6. He’s right. In 2001 Rumsfeld was in the mainstream. Rumsfeld also had some good ideas for the U.S. military, incidentally. For example, his idea of transformation makes a lot of sense as an element of our overall war-fighting strategy — but just an element.

    <

    p>Rumsfeld disgraced himself and destroyed his impressive reputation during his tour of duty. He disappointed many people by his blindness and incompetence.

    <

    p>The comment by Obama in 2001, however, reflects sound judgment — as evidence by the unanimous vote to confirm by Democrats and Republicans discussed above in the comments.

    • Yes, he did pass with a voice vote (that includes Hillary), nice catch CMD.  It’s Bush’s first appointments to start his admin, your usually get your own cabinet and appointments.  The thing that strikes me here is that he said (in 2001) that he was part of the mainstream in while he was in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?  That in Obama’s judgment at the time was mainstream America and he likes Bush’s appointees?  It’s a trend and you can see it in 2001, and it hasn’t changed.  It’s troubling.

  7. I distinctly remember many people in friendly camps not being thrilled with Rumsfeld from the start. I didn’t learn that much about him till I was in college, where he was universally disliked. It doesn’t matter what administrations he served on, he was known as being in the neo-con camp. I’m sorry, but no matter how the Republicans would like to slice it, that’s just not in the mainstream.

    • That just a neo-con group, it’s “the” neo-con group.  They are the chief architects of the Iraq war and Bush’s middle east policy.

Archives