Do we really need the opinion of a Heritage Foundation propaganda hack.

The "heritage" foundation---lies, lies and more lies.
Essentially a propaganda factory for the military-industrial complex.

Of course everyone has been disappointed.

Do you think that Obama could turn around the toxic legacy inherited from the Bush administration, and all the other assault on the USA body politic--and the plunderings thereof too. Which began with the "great communicator"---remember the Savings and Loan Scandals of the Reagan years. Applied "free" market economics and politics.

Remember Gingrich's "contract with America".

Plus the right-wing forces that associate with "heritage" have all been working in full drive to create a climate of hysteria around Obama and the NECESSARY changes that he wishes to make. Glenn Beck, Russ Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc etc being the foaming at the mouth attack dogs for this hysteria, what it represents, and what it is invoking. Mass scapegoat politics.

Remember too that "heritage" provided much of the ideological basis for what Naomi Klein describes in The Shock Doctrine.

Many people and groups that associate with "heritage" are also ardent supporters of this charming organization http://soaw.org

Plus why not do some research on "heritage" and its origins, purposes, and its BENIGHTED founders/backers.

This is a good place to start:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation

Notice too that "heritage" is very much associated with the murdochracy described by John Pilger in todays posting.

Fox and "heritage" "news" anyone.

Yep, Ho Hum, like you I am truly worried that Obama may be forced to follow much of the Bush doctrine after all.

Such weakness might be already worrying the Europeans that we could be in for another big war?

As a so-called Mature Age academic, my mind can't help drifting back to the days when we had great hopes of a reformed League of Nations.

Talking about Europe they were mostly all for the UN, especially the Nordics, who supplied the wary and wonderful Hamascheld.

But as with the League, the UN was soon taken over by singular power in the shape of America.

In academia we later learnt so much about Kantian Philosophy where all democratic nations should be brought together into a single unit, with a leader possibly much more humbly sensible than a George W Bush.

The big trouble of course, is that we have always let the strongest economic nation not only supply the bulk of the war chest, but also the war leader.

Certainly the idea of a United Nations was to have been much more globally astute about political problems which have emerged since WW2.

Regards, BB, WA.

The fact that Obama *doesn't* stop following Bush's line doesn't mean he *can't*. Take Iraq. We now know that all the reasons given for going to war with Iraq were false. Obama is the commander-in-chief of the troops responsible for so much killing and maiming there - and that's only of American troops, let alone of Iraqis, which no-one ever seems to count. Obama even got a Nobel peace prize. There is no good reason why he should not withdraw America's troops and empire-building there right now - stop making excuses for him.

The peanut is too busy thinking about how he looks & sounds, to have any room left in that pea brain, for any rational thought.

Should be familiar to all Ozies. We have another of the same breed here in Oz.

I think you're being a bit harsh on both the author and Tony Abbott.