Zbygniew Brzezinski About America’s Security Posture

Next to George Bush, a lump of coal appears to be gold but actually Brzezinski grades Bill Clinton’s foreign policy with only a C. Now the security advisor, who predicted disaster in Iraq, gives credibility to Barack Obama. Brzezinski about Obama: “Obama seems to me has both the guts and the intelligence . . . to change America’s relationship to the world.”

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Zbygniew Brzezinski About America’s Security Posture

  1. Obama is no neocon, but he still clamors to get the most attention from AIPAC, showing he loves Israel more and hates Iran more than anyone else. As such, I don’t think he will bring about meaningful change if elected.

    Like

  2. There’s nothing wrong with supporting Israel, which is after all the only democracy in the Middle East. Unlike Bush, however, Obama will make the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations a priority and conduct conflict resolution based on principles that recognize both parties’ rights.

    I don’t think that one has to become a pacifist to adjust America’s security posture properly, Ronan. On the contrary, that would be a big mistake. Just because Bush bungled and corrupted the war that doesn’t mean that the United States does not need to protect itself.

    As Brzezinski says, Obama will engage our enemies instead of worshipping holy cows. Talking to Cuba, for example, will be a major departure from the status quo that can only benefit Cuba’s people and dissidents.

    Most importantly, there will be an end to the Bush hypocrisy that lectures the peoples of the world about moral imperatives while torturing prisoners to death. Instead Obama will focus the war on al Qaeda, restore our alliances, and divide our enemies.

    American leadership is indispensable. George W. Bush is too self-righteous to lead. For all his rhetorical appeal, Bill Clinton was ultimately too lazy to lead. Obama appreciates America’s place in the world.

    He understands the strategic opportunities and limitations. That’s better than what he have had since 1993.

    Like

  3. Obama is probably the best candidate out there right now. He’s got that Bush quality of being personable and likable (which Bush failed to really take advantage of—instead going for the scripted fakery). He’s also quite intelligent and knows how to present himself well, like Bill Clinton. He hasn’t been as tainted with politics as most of the other candidates and still holds some independence. However, the system is so corrupted that even the best of candidates will have to kowtow to interest groups whose interest is not in the best interest of our nation. We won’t be able to clean that up short of a revolution, I’m afraid.

    Like

  4. I agree that Obama could be the right man on foreign policy. I think he will present strong leadership and feel unencumbered by obsolete policies that never were effective in the first place. It would be interesting to see if he really would alienate the Cuban community, and with them some portion of the hispanic community more broadly, by having talks with Cuba and perhaps dropping the regime of sanctions that we’ve been pursuing for so long. It would be great if he did though.

    Like

  5. Hellmut,
    Perhaps what you are not taking into consideration is the power that Israel’s lobbyists have over our politicians. For example, last summer’s war with Lebanon was almost universally condemned and would have been aborted rapidly had the US supported its condemnation. The US was alone in the Security Council in blocking a ceasefire resolution. House Resolution 921, which asserted Israel’s right to self-defense and condemned Hamas and Hezbollah passed 410-8 and was written by AIPAC!
    From the IMEU site:

    Senator William Fulbright, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conducted hearings on foreign influence-buying in Congress in the 1960s. He later said: “I hadn’t realized before the hearings that the Jewish lobby was so powerful. … I didn’t know they were subverting the Congress.” He also said: “The lobby can just about tell the President what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly harmful…to us and ultimately to Israel itself.”

    Also:

    There was a Sixty Minutes segment on AIPAC back in October 1988. During that segment, former Under Secretary of State George Ball said: “Practically every congressman and senator says his prayers to the AIPAC lobby. They’ve done an enormous job of corrupting the American democratic process.”

    Listening to “the Lobby” is detrimental to US interests and in the long run, bad for Israel too. We need politicians that don’t cower before the might lobby (indeed a secret combination of sorts) in order to get a very good foreign policy in place.

    Obama would definately be better than the neocons, but that’s not saying much.

    Like

Comments are closed.