In September of 2011, a drone attack in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, two American citizens. Although both men were suspected Al-Qaeda affiliates, neither had been charged with any crime, nor had they been indicted by any US Court.
Catch that? Two American citizens were killed by the government of the United States because they engaged in suspicious activity.
These killings were the result of a policy initiated by the Obama
administration, the details of which were revealed in an exclusive story
uncovered by veteran Washington reporter Michael Isikoff. A Justice Department memo, outlining policy, asserts that the United States government can summarily execute its own citizens. Further, the legal requirements for such an execution are very low. The memo states that "the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat
of violent attack against the United States does not require the United
States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and
interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Get it? The Justice Department asserts that the government can execute any American citizen whom the Justice Department deems might someday pose a threat to the United States. More bluntly, if you talk to the wrong people, the President can have you killed.
This issue, which has been simmering for at least 18 months, is now being brought to the fore because the Obama administration has nominated counter-terrorism adviser James Brennan to be the new Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan is an advocate and supporter of this policy.
At long last, and with the national election (conveniently) behind us so there can't be any meaningful debate, this blockbuster issue is getting some much-needed exposure.
I've never been comfortable with the drone policy. It would seem to be disastrous from a counter-terrorism standpoint. Although the Justice Department stresses that the attacks are targeted, when a bomb drops on a wedding or a funeral or a random village innocent bystanders will be killed. Americans don't generally worry too much when people in exotic places are killed by their government. But now that American citizens are included in the list of viable targets maybe we'll get some public outcry.
I'd love to blame all of this on Junior Bush and his rotten administration, but the truth is that although Bush expanded drone
attacks during his term, President Obama has
taken it to a whole new level. Killing American citizens by executive
order!
Republicans looking for an impeachable offense
would have one here, except that they don't have the stones for it. Besides, they no doubt see the usefulness
of the policy. They'll be back in the White House one day, after all. This is bipartisan. (Can't you just see John McCain gleefully rubbing his hands together?) President Obama is merely advancing the whole misguided drone
policy to its logical next state.
The drone genie got let out of the
bottle a decade or more ago. Given the moral corruption of our
corporate-owned government, it is hard to imagine that we'll ever get it
back in.
Actually, President Obama's second term began yesterday. Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office in a small private ceremony at the White House on Sunday.
Today was spectacle. And it was quite a show. The pageant's seduction pulls at you even through the television. I can only imagine how it would be to be standing in the cold on the national mall, one of some 800,000 eye-witnesses to the event. Powerful magics are at work. It takes a willful soul not to get caught up in the moment.
Washington is the President's town. He has an agenda. He has the confidence of his party. He has the support of the public. His opponents are in disarray. The historical moment is ripe.
How encouraging, then, were these words from the Inaugural Address?
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic
measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to
reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we
reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the
generation that built this country and investing in the generation that
will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when
twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a
disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country,
freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We
recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of
us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home
swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other –
through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do
not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a
nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country
great.
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are
not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the
threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray
our children and future generations. Some may still deny the
overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating
impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful
storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and
sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must
lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will
power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is
how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure –
our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is
how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s
what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting
peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform,
tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage.
Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well
the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice
will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But
we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who
turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those
lessons into this time as well.
For a proud liberal like me, these words play like a symphony: an acknowledgment of our responsibility toward each other and toward humanity; a dismissal of the prejudice and fear that impedes us; a humble pride in our nobility.
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department intends to wrap up its investigation into the CIA’s past interrogation, rendition, and detention activities. Federal prosecutor John Durham determined that no further law enforcement action is appropriate.
Here's what CIA Director Leon Panetta had to say about the Justice Department decision: "After extensive examination of more than 100 instances in which CIA had
contact or was alleged to have had contact with terrorist detainees,
[Durham] has determined that no further law enforcement action is
appropriate in all but two discrete cases."
Isn't that reassuring?
There is still the possibility of criminal charges being filed in two specific cases. They are: 1) the case of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who, in 2005, died of "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression", and that his body showed "evidence of blunt force trauma to the chest and legs"; 2) the case of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi who, in 2003 was murdered while in the custody of US military personnel.
But, of course, what this means is that the CIA is looking for scapegoats. At most, we'll see prosecution of a few low-level soldiers or private contractors, some public tut-tutting, and a quick wrap-up. No "moving up the chain;" no accountability for Bush administration officials who authorized torture.
Holder's statement indicates that the Obama administration is on board with all of it. Small wonder. Between the ever-increasing drone attacks conducted in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and the summary assassination of an American citizen last year, the Obama administration has plenty of dirt under its own fingernails. One thing on which Democrats and Republicans agree is that no one wants any messy examinations of constitutional abuses by the executive branch. The 911 attacks provided the opportunity to expand authoritarian power. Neither side wants to mess that up.
Not-so-conincidentally, on the very day that the Justice Department made its announcement, the Senate voted to confirm General David Petraeus as the CIA's new director, to replace Panetta, who is stepping down. Petraeus, at his confirmation hearings, had this to say about the matter:
“We do not any longer truly, I think, appreciate the context of the
post-9/11 period and some actions that were taking place under
direction. And I, for
one, again, as the potential leader of the agency, would like to see us
focus forward and indeed put some of these actions behind us once and
for all and put our workforce at rest with respect to that.”
Smother.
Republic to Empire is a one-way street and we're more than halfway down the block.
It seemed to me that the entire speech had a hard undertone. It wasn't overtly political. But while the President was speaking, it was hard to forget that this is an election year.
Just a few observations:
In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.
It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.
As the President spoke these words, the cameras were trained on Treasury Secretary Geithner. Kinda took all the air out of the room.
The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.
Maybe I'm delusional, but with the Republican party in such chaos right now, I believe there might be an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. With no clear leader, the GOP is jittery and adrift. So-called "establishment" Republicans are panicked about next week's Florida primary. If Newt Gingrich somehow manages to win it, Republicans everywhere will freak out! It will become imperative that they distance themselves from Gingrich and his supporters. They will take extreme measures up to and including cooperation with the Obama administration. (Senator Scott Brown is probably feeling a little tight around the collar, right now.)
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
Perilous ground for Republicans. Immigration is a big red dividing line within their party. A lot will depend on how the presidential race looks in a few months. If Obama looks strong, there is a chance that an immigration package might make it through.
Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.
This sounds something like what Governor Kitzhaber proposed for Oregon schools in 2010. It makes perfect sense and therefore has no chance in the US Congress.
Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.
That probably caused some butterflies in the audience. Some of them have already signed the leases for their K Street office buildings.
So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.
After all the ugly politics of the last 3 years, I'm deaf to these clarion calls. I don't believe in them anymore. I can't make up my mind about President Obama. I'm still followed around by the ghosts of lost hope. I remember what it was like to believe. I miss that.
He's still got a long way to go before he comes into my good graces, but I will admit that President Obama at least moved the needle in a favorable direction with yesterday's veto threat.
On Monday, the news came down that the super committee had failed (surprise, surprise) to reach an agreement about how to reduce the budget deficit. Now, because of that failure, there will be an automatic sequestration of the federal budget, cutting $1.2 trillion from education, public housing, and that cow which Republicans hold most sacred, defense.
Cutting defense spending is bad juju for Republicans. Never mind that the cuts don't even come into effect until 2013. It doesn't look good.
So, in order to salvage the situation, Republican Buck McKeon (CA) and the old angry badger himself, Senator John McCain, announced that they were crafting legislation that would prevent the cuts to defense from taking place. The ol' end-around that Republicans became so good at when Junior was in the Oval.
Well, the President put the kibosh on that little bit of skullduggery. The money quote:
My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. --President Obama, November 21, 2011
How refreshing! Tough talk from the president!
But, more importantly, the President's remarks lay out the stark reality for Republicans, and they can see it plain as day. The President has them right where he wants them.
The Bush tax cuts, the crown jewel of the Bush legacy, are set to expire at the end of 2012. Republicans want to salvage those tax cuts. But they can't do so without Democratic cooperation. President Obama's veto threat slams the door on any hopes Republicans may have entertained about winning over pliant Democrats in Congress, and forces them to return to the bargaining table on deficit negotiations.
If they refuse, the defense cuts go into effect and the Bush tax cuts expire. If they cooperate, they lose the Bush tax cuts and will be forced to accede to Democratic demands for increased revenues (read: taxes).
All of this is predicated on the Democrats holding firm on their side of the table, of course. And we all know that there are few commodities more scarce than Democratic resolve.
We'll see how it plays out. But I wouldn't want to be in Mitch McConnell's shoes right now.
The successful military operation that culminated in the death of Osama bin Laden is a crystal clear example of the superiority of our current president, Barack Obama, over his imbecilic predecessor, Junior Bush.
President Obama faced huge political risk when he authorized the operation. (And, isn't it telling that there has been no snazzy, poll-tested name given to it? No "Operation Iraqi Freedom" hoohaw?) If the mission had somehow ended in disaster, the President's already shaky approval numbers would most likely have fallen through the floor. (Remember President Carter's Operation Eagle Claw?) But Obama did something that today seems almost unbelievable. He put the interests of his country ahead of his own political interests!
Junior, when faced with a similar opportunity in December 2001, chose to protect his political capital According to a definitive account by Peter Bergen (senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Osama bin Laden I Know), even as US military forces and their allies had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, "the Bush administration’s attention was distracted by the planning process for Iraq." The last thing Junior and Cheney wanted, going in to the new year, was to have significant military casualties broadcast across the airwaves, dampening public appetite for war. Their goal was Iraq and nothing must interfere with that. Osama bin Laden escaped Tora Bora in mid-December.
Hoo boy...
Further, contrast how the two men, Obama and Junior, portrayed their various successes. President Obama made a brief factual statement on the evening of the conclusion of the operation. Junior, on the other hand, in May 2003 played dress up just like a real soldier and gave a premature victory speech in front of a banner on an aircraft carrier. (By the way, the mission Junior was celebrating went on to last another seven years.)
Today, President Obama graciously invited Junior to join him in placing a wreath at Ground Zero in memory of the victims of 911, but Junior declined. A spokesman said Bush appreciated the invitation, but "has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight."
Just serves to confirm what I already knew: There's no contempt like self-contempt, eh, Junior? Sucks to be you.
President Obama delivered the State of the Union address last night, calling for bipartisan cooperation and for progress in areas where he believes Democrats and Republicans can find common ground.
The atmosphere surrounding the speech, coming as it did in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, was more somber and less partisan than has been typical in recent years. The ovations that typically interrupt the State of the Union address were less sustained, less boisterous, and certainly less politically pointed. Part of that, no doubt, was due to the suspension of the congressional tradition of dividing the House chamber along strictly partisan lines. So, for example, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) sat side by side in the audience.
In his remarks, the President repeatedly called for bipartisan cooperation. He made mention of various issues and solutions that might find appeal with each side of the left-right political spectrum. So, for Republicans, the President suggested that the health care reform bill that passed last year could be improved with "medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits." For Democrats, there were calls for investment in alternative energy research and funding for education and infrastructure improvements.
(My own liberal inclinations got a nice boost when the President urged against "subsidiz[ing] yesterday's energy." That must surely have made some of the black hearts in Big Oil board rooms skip a beat or two.)
This was certainly not the most rousing State of the Union speech I have seen. And, it seemed to me that the President went light on the soaring rhetoric. I felt the speech was a down-to-earth, practical statement: For this country to thrive, we need to work together. The President extended an olive branch and expressed a willingness to listen to Republicans.
Now, let's see if the GOP has enough integrity left in it to respond in kind.
The political zeitgeist of this country is, once again, in flux. What are we to make of these developments?
President Obama's approval numbers are on the rise again. He's currently at 53% approval, which is a 7% jump since the end of last year. I perhaps stand as exemplary of the turnaround. When the President announced the tax deal he made with Republicans in the Senate, I deemed it the final straw. But then, following quickly on that deal, the lame duck Congress kicked into high gear and passed a lot of good, marginally-progressive legislation. Then, after viewing the President's eulogy for the victims in Tucson, he won me over again. So, I'm one of that 7%.
Things are off to a bad start for Speaker Boehner's House of Representatives. The Republican caucus found itself in the awkward position of having to pass legislation to repeal last year's health care reform bill even as the public is warming up to the new reforms. The bill calling for out-and-out repeal passed the House, but will go nowhere in the Senate, which is still run by Harry Reid. Now, Boehner is faced with a predicament: move on to other issues and risk infuriating the Tea Party base; or continue the quixotic fight and risk seeming out of touch with the political "middle" which has expressed a desire to see bipartisan cooperation and jobs legislation.
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announced on Wednesday that he will not seek reelection to the US Senate in 2012. "I've never shied from a good fight and I never will," said he, as he made his announcement. Good riddance, says I. There's no need to recount all the ways in which Lieberman has infuriated me (and many others) with his sanctimonious nonsense. The writing was on the wall and he read it. He could not win reelection. But don't think he won't be around to plague us in the future. Whether he chooses a behind-the-scenes lobbying job on K Street, making bank by serving insurance companies and defense contractors, or perhaps serves as a token "Democrat" in some future Republican administration (perhaps as Defense Secretary), I have a feeling Joe Lieberman is with us for the duration. (Just like herpes simplex virus.)
Democratic prospects for holding a majority in the Senate after the 2012 elections are dim and growing dimmer. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced that he will not seek reelection. The chances of another Democrat winning that seat are slim. After all, North Dakota has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since LBJ crushed Barry Goldwater in 1964.
It seems that Sarah Palin's star may finally be setting. After her ill-advised remarks defending herself in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, in which she invoked the historically-loaded term "Blood Libel," elected Republican officials were noticeably disinclined to leap to her defense. And why should they? They want her out of the way. They don't want her complicating the political equation in the run up to the 2012 Presidential election. Fox News, of course, is doing its best to keep her relevant. They've invested a lot of money in her, after all. The problem is that the Sean Hannity interview was so obviously softball that even Fox News viewers saw through it. If she wants my advice (and I just know she does), I will tell Sister Sarah to stash her lettuce, stay up in Alaska, and live the easy life. That's what I'd do, if I were her.
Ron Reagan, Junior, has written a book about his father, entitled My Father at 100. In it, he suggests that President Reagan may have been suffering from symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency. Ron's brother, Michael Reagan, a conservative radio talk-show host, denounced the book and his brother, stating: “Ron, my brother was an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and today he became an embarrassment to his mother." I'm not a big fan of Ronald Reagan, and even less a fan of Michael. Nonetheless, it is always tragic and sad to see a man publicly denounce his own brother. Patch it up, you two!
All in all, an interesting week or two, politically. Interesting times ahead...
As the memory of President Obama's historic speech fades, I believe the American public is holding its collective breath to see if his call for more civility and respect in our politics will take hold.
I am hopeful. Check this out...
Senator Mark Udall of Colorado has put forth a proposal that breaks a partisan tradition in Congress. Senator Udall's idea is so simple and obvious that Americans everywhere must surely feel a little sheepish that no one had suggested it earlier.
It is this: At the State of the Union address later this month, rather than dividing Congress into Democratic and Republican seating sections, as if they were at a college football game, have the various members of Congress sit amongst each other.
You know? Desegregation.
So far, from what I've read, the idea is getting bipartisan support, ranging from Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell in the Senate, to Steny Hoyer in the House. Speaker Boehner gave a less-than-enthusiastic response. "Members of Congress choose where to sit at the State of the Union," he said through a spokesman. Well, at least that's not a flat-out "No."
It seems like a small thing. But, we've been at each other's throats for so long now that even this small thing counts for something.
Let's be real. There is a risk with getting on board the "hippie-dippy" love train. Nobody wants to end up looking like a head-in-the-clouds dreamer. But, I think Americans are ready to be reconciled to each other.
As President Obama said, if we really want to honor the fallen from the Tucson tragedy, we ought to give it a try.
Ka-POW! President Obama and the 111th Congress finish the session with a rapid-fire string of successes that furthers his agenda and leaves Republican leadership, and most specifically the two top Republicans in the US Senate, bewildered and humiliated.
Liberals, progressives, and left-wingers (like me) were still pissing and moaning about this president's lack of fight, about his apparent willingness to knuckle under to right-wing bigots, while President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went about dismantling their opposition in the Senate.
In the 6 weeks since the mid-term elections, the lame duck congress has racked up some huge wins for the Obama agenda:
The president struck a compromise deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for top income Americans in order to win an extension of Federal unemployment benefits and a payroll tax reduction. This compromise infuriated a lot of us on the left, but when we see the other achievements that came as a result of the compromise, left-wing fury is mitigated (at least as far as I'm concerned).
President Obama, with the help of Harry Reid, delivered on a campaign promise to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military. He did this over the furious opposition of the supposed and fraudulent champion of the Armed Forces, Senator John McCain. A big win for all Americans, but especially for my many dear friends and neighbors who are gay.
With the help of his friend and colleague, Republican Senator Richard Lugar (IN), the president netted 71 votes in the US Senate to win approval of the New START treaty with Russia. Glory hallelujah! The United States Senate has somehow managed to overcome its stupendous ignorance just long enough to do humanity a real service. A fine solstice gift from the Great Whatever! This vote, in particular, was a humiliating loss for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his top lieutenant, Senate Minority Whip John Kyl who had come out publicly against the treaty. The Senate Republican caucus, for all its vaunted solidarity, fell apart. Thirteen GOP Senators ignored their caucus leadership to vote with the president.
(The thirteen Republican senators who voted for START, those Republicans who put country before party, are Lamar Alexander (TN), Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Thad Chochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Judd Gregg (NH), Darrel Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH). These Republican senators showed real integrity. I offer my sincere gratitude to them all.)
The president got a little help when advocates for the bill stormed the office of Senator Tom Coburn (OK) who was attempting to single-handedly kill the bill. Coburn cowed in the face of the people's passion and folded up like an origami swan.
This bill enacts the most sweeping food safety regulations this country has seen in decades.
All of these achievements (with the lone exception of the extension of top-bracket tax cuts) are unequivocally in the larger public interest. But, from a political perspective, something even more portentous (or ominous from a right-wing perspective) is that President Obama was able to divide the normally lock-step Republican caucus and forge bipartisan coalitions.
Now, Mitch McConnell (who left Washington with a snarky "Wait'll next year" whine), has to wonder how much success he'll have with his new larger-but-still-in-the-minority caucus in the next Congress.
In the House, even though the GOP will have the majority in the 112th Congress, John Boehner will, I predict, be forced by the lack of solidarity within his party to cut deals with the ruthlessly competent Nancy Pelosi.
The 112th Congress is going to be a very lively session. If tea-baggers think they know outrage, wait until they see how easily Republicans cast aside all their petty, idiotic concerns in the face of political competence and popular appeal.
Back in September 2009, I posited that President Obama had reached a crucial moment of decision in his young presidency. (Please see What's it gonna be, Barack?) I asserted that the position the Obama administration took with regard to the inclusion of a public option in the health care reform legislation would determine whether President Obama would be a bold advocate for the people or an appeaser of corporate lobbying interests.
Well, we all know how that turned out. At the time, although I bitterly resented that the most obvious, least expensive solution for health care reform was ignored and discounted and excluded from the debate in an obvious kowtow to the interests of health care insurance providers, I couldn't bring myself to blame President Obama.
But this latest surrender is a bridge too far.
On Monday, President Obama announced a tentative deal with Republican Senators. In exchange for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income brackets, Republicans agreed to a 13-month extension of unemployment insurance, a reduction in employee payroll taxes next year, and the continuation of a variety of tax credits aimed at lower- and middle-income Americans. To sum up, Republicans agreed to throw bread crumbs to the masses, but only on the condition that their principle constituency, the über-rich, continue to be absolved of any significant contribution to federal revenues.
There is little use in pointing out the Republican hypocrisy on this issue. Yes, the tax cuts pile another $700 billion onto the federal deficit. And, yes, that flies in the face of the supposed fiscal concerns the GOP and their mindless tea-bag zealots shrieked about during the recent political campaign. And, yes, it is two-faced of Republicans to complain about adding the relatively small cost of unemployment benefits to the federal deficit while advocating for extending tax cuts. But, at this point, only a fool would expect anything less than bald-faced hypocrisy from Republicans. It sustains them. It is their lifeblood.
What is most offensive about this "deal," is that President Obama rolled over so willingly. He seems averse to cornering his political opponents and forcing them to take tough votes. If he had taken a stand, as he repeatedly suggested he would do during the campaign, there is no telling how things would have played out. As the clock ticks toward January 1, when the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire, all sides would be pressured to cut some kind of deal. But Obama let the Republicans off the hook and scorned the left-wing of his own party.
Add this betrayal to the long list of bullsh*t concessions that Obama, who led unprecedented Democratic majorities in both houses of the 111th Congress, has handed over to the very people who scorn and disrespect him, and who have shown not the slightest interest in compromise.
As my friend, Dave Hauth pointed out, Obama has
refused to investigate the many overt crimes of the Bush Administration, and has actively worked to squelch such investigations by Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom;
done nothing to end either of the two unnecessary (and, in the case of Iraq, illegal) wars;
continued Bush administration Constitutional abuses (expanded warrant-less wiretapping, claimed executive power to assassinate United States citizens);
There's more. But why bother continuing?
One wonders how different things would be if Mad Johnny McCain were president rather than Obama. McCain might have had us in a couple more wars by now, but other than that...
It's impossible to know how history will judge President Obama. But the sad truth of the matter is that I don't see a whole lot of difference between him and his imbecilic predecessor.
"Mr. President, don't worry about the base. They're f*cking retarded."
Rumors abound in all the papers that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is set to leave the Obama administration to make a run for Mayor Richard Daley's job as the head honcho of the City of Chicago.
I've got my fingers crossed for two reasons.
Reason Number 1: To quote Tony Montana, the cocaine kingpin from the 1983 remake, Scarface, as he watched his business partner dance on the end of a noose, "I never liked that prick."
Thanks to Rahm Emanuel, this administration has given the Democratic base, the Left, whom Rahm said was "f*cking retarded," the back of the hand. I'll give him this: he's not a glad-hander. If he has no use for you, he'll let you know by demeaning you and insulting you. A real class act, that Rahm.
But, whether it was the public option surrender in the recently-passed (and supposedly historic) health care legislation, or the one-sided, unjust, and unquestioning support of Israel in the Palestinian conflict, or the failure of the Obama administration to investigate and prosecute the many obvious criminals in the previous administration, it is easy to discern the hand of Rahm Emanuel.
Reason Number 2: From what I've read, an Emanuel victory in Chicago is anything but assured. He could easily lose the race. And you may call it petty, if you like, but I relish the thought of Rahm Emanuel being handed a humiliating defeat at the hands of Chicago voters.
I remember the day, back in November, 2006, when Junior Bush was humiliated at the polls, ceding control of both houses of Congress to the opposition party. The look on his simian face, bewildered and vaguely frightened, was pure bliss to behold. Well, an Emanuel loss might not be quite as sublime as all that, but it would be sweet nonetheless.
Of course, if Rahm does leave the White House, that is no guarantee that the Obama administration will set a new course that is more palatable to liberals and progressives. And I'd caution anyone from expecting that it will. But it is doubtful that President Obama could pick anyone more antagonistic to the Democratic base than he did the first time. (Well, I suppose he could pick a Republican. Heh.)
President Obama is a different kind of cat. Amid all the vitriol and vituperation, all the ignorance and ignominy, all the petty pride and partisan politics of the health care debate, he has maintained his cool. While each side, right and left, has raged against this or for that, he has held himself apart (some might say aloof) from the donnybrook. Even in the face of undignified and racist remarks about his citizenship and faith on the one hand, and outraged accusations about betrayal and lack of conviction on the other. (I'm part of that latter group.)
And just when it seemed the health care debate had petered out, a victim of the rancorous partisan atmosphere that asserts itself whenever Congress is left to its own devices, he pulls a symbolic rabbit out of his hat: the Blair House health care summit.
It is hard to imagine that the summit, which occurs today, will be viewed by the American public as anything other than a magnanimous gesture by the President. We all saw the nasty and ignorant signs that the tea-baggers were waving around during their summer histrionics: Obama with a Hitler moustache; Obama as a tribal shaman; Obama as a radical Muslim cleric. It takes a cool cucumber to ignore all that and continue to make conciliatory gestures toward the very people (Senator Chuck Grassley, Minority House Leader John Boehner, et alia) who did their best to foment it.
But, of course, let's not be ignorant of the President's motives regarding the summit. First and foremost, it is a trap for the Republicans. They may have flirted with the idea of boycotting the event, but that was never really an option for them. They have to appear to be cooperating; they have to seem to be interested in the concerns of the American public, which, while perhaps not supporting the President's plan, still overwhelmingly recognizes the need for some kind of reform. (And thank you very much, Wellpoint, for underscoring that reality with your obscene rate hikes.)
And yet, Republicans also cannot really come out of the summit appearing to cooperate with the President. Their base, those enlightened beings with the Lipton tea bags hanging from their hats, would blow its collective stack at such a development, leaving Republicans with none beyond their fat cat constituency (bankers, corporatists) who, although generous enough with their campaign contributions, don't have many votes.
The President cant' really lose, no matter what happens. He's no real friend to the progressive movement, as he will gladly point out. ("I'm not an ideologue," he recently told the House Republican caucus.) So it's no skin off his shoulder if a health care reform bill turns out to be a glorified sop to the health insurance industry. The Republicans have done him the service of providing themselves as a scape-goat on that score.
But even if, at the end of the summit, Republicans leap in front of the microphones to complain about being frozen out, even if they vow not to cooperate, the President has the trump card of reconciliation to pass the legislation. And congressional Democrats will use it. Because they have to pass something. They cannot go into the fall elections without having a health care reform bill to hold up as an accomplishment. If they do it right, they might even reverse the political tide that, as of the moment, threatens to swamp them in November.
So, if I'm right about all this (and I could very well be wrong), the health care summit is destined to be a win for the President. It's only a matter of degree.
Even with all evidence indicating that it makes not a whit of difference which party is in control of the various levers of government (health care debate, anyone? how about the Supreme Court ruling for the plutocracy? or the escalation in Afghanistan?) it is nonetheless highly entertaining to see Republicans summarily put in their place. Especially when the humiliation is handed to them, calmly and rationally, by a man whom they have subjected to their most degrading and shrill attacks.
Last Friday, President Obama attended a meeting of the House Republican Caucus where he made remarks and then fielded questions from House Republicans. (You can watch a video of the event here.) As one House Republican later admitted to Luke Russert, "It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that." Hmm... you think?
(And can anyone imagine Junior taking questions from the Democratic caucus when he was squatting in the Oval Office? As we saw from his performances in various presidential debates and press conferences, his puny intellect was quickly overwhelmed by aggressive questioning, causing him to lash out in petulant anger.)
In his remarks, President Obama, it seemed to me, did a good job of putting the Republicans on the defensive. The general gist of those remarks was that Republicans, with their ugly, demonizing rhetoric, have made it nearly impossible to reach across party lines.
I can't imagine that the President is suffering under the illusion that this gesture will cause the Republican caucus to suddenly see reason and begin honest negotiations with Democrats in crafting legislation. Republicans have no incentive to do so. Rather, this was a brilliant political move, designed to point up the contrast in stature between an intelligent, rational executive and a shrill, bigoted extremist party.
A caller to the Norman Goldman radio show on Friday night said it best when he told Mr. Goldman, "No one knows mealy-mouthed antagonism like a Harvard-educated black man."
That perceptive and prima facie observation was clearly demonstrated by the President when he calmly fielded provocative and accusatory questions from some of the most offensive members of that reactionary body, and responded to them with cool-headed recitation of facts. President Obama has surely been dealing with people like this all his life.
It is now apparent. Apart from all the nauseating displays of indignity and the naked hypocrisy of inept Republicans, apart from the low brow hysteria of the Glenn Beck tea-baggers, apart even from the perpetual, plaintive mewling about ideological betrayal of the political Left, there really is something pernicious and rotten in the Obama administration. And its name appears to be Timothy Geithner.
Right-wing losers have accused the Obama administration of engaging in "class warfare." Well, in spite of their juvenile misinterpretations of history, it is starting to look like they might be right. At least, to an extent. But this is where they miss the boat: there is no White House effort to redistribute wealth downward. This is a case of the Very Rich protecting the Very Rich.
Check this story from Bloomberg Press. It tells an appalling tale of greed and the use of public treasure to benefit a very select group of people at the expense of everyone else.
The story is a challenging read for anyone who does not have an LLP attached to his or her appellation, but as I understand it, Timothy Geithner's Federal Reserve Bank of New York instructed AIG (American International Group, Incorporated) not to disclose the details of the "credit swaps" conducted early last year as part of the emergency measures taken to prevent a collapse of world financial markets. And, now that some light is being shed on what actually went down, it appears that there is good reason to want to hide those swaps. Lo and behold, Goldman Sachs Group, Incorporated, and other huge corporate banks were repaid 100 cents on the dollar for all of those fake loans and securities that were starting to crumble underneath them. The money came straight out of the Federal Treasury. The same Federal Treasury of which Timothy Geithner is now Secretary.
This is big.
If the worst implications of these revelations are true, there had better be some people getting fitted with handcuffs before it's all over. This is corruption of Bush-Cheney proportions.
Over the last two decades (or maybe even longer, who knows?), rats have infested the White House. Rats in the form of corporate bankers and fast-talking Wall Street whiz kids. Now that we've hit the skids, the very rats who brought about our national financial calamity are making sure that everyone else pay for it. We get left holding the bag, while they stow away their misbegotten fortunes and go on leading us into the next disaster.
This is the last thing President Obama needs, to be sure. But it stinks too much to ignore. At this point, I'm willing to believe that the President is not culpable in all this. He came into office with the house on fire and he had to make a lot of decisions very quickly. He is not connected with the Wall Street crowd and may well have been convinced by people whom he trusted that Timothy Geithner was the Man of the Hour. After all, there are no more convincing liars anywhere in the world than the shysters on Wall Street.
But now we're starting to get a look under the White House floorboards, and the rat's nest is pretty god-damned appalling.
The manner in which President Obama responds to this will reveal much. And if he doesn't do the right thing, I may, at long last, resign myself to the reality that in our society, money is all that matters. Maybe this is the way the Roman middle class felt when Marius and Sulla started the little spat that finally killed off their republic.
In that case: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Well, well, well... Maybe I've been all wrong about Big Dick.
Maybe he is not an immoral, profit driven villain, twisted and warped by lust for wealth and rage at the deterioration of his corporeal form. Maybe, in the end, he's just a family man.
Although no longer vice-president, Cheney has remained on the scene as a sort of national gadfly, carping and griping at various intervals over the last year. Just last week, there he was, complaining to Politico that President Obama is “trying to pretend we are not at war.”
Pundits and journalists have expressed puzzlement at Cheney's motives. Is Big Dick angling for political position in preparation for a run for public office? Is he motivated by a sincere concern for the welfare of the American public? Both of these motives seem unlikely. After all, whenever Cheney spouts any of his seething, raspy diatribes, he is mostly greeted with scorn and derision and ends up making President Obama look good by comparison.
Perhaps the answer lies in the seldom-remembered fact that Big Dick is, in fact, President Obama's ninth cousin. Maybe --just maybe --Big Dick is giving his cousin a helping hand.
***
(Imagine, if you will, that Big Dick is sitting in his Casper, Wyoming office, torturing a kitten, when the phone rings. With a scowl that would curdle fresh milk, Cheney scoops up the receiver.)
Big Dick: What is it?
Barry: Whoa! Bad day, Dick?
Big Dick (chuckling): Don't push it, cuz. You won't be Top Dog forever.
Barry: True that! But I'll tell you, the White House kitchen sure can cook up some tasty lamb chops.
Big Dick: Yeah, rub it in, you bastard.
(Mutual laughter.)
Barry: Hey, cuz. You know I love you, but this is actually not just a social call.
Big Dick: I'm listening.
Barry: You know, they're busting my balls out there. The pussies on the left are whining about their "public health care option" and the Tea Party zombies are frothing like Wyoming cattle with hoof-in-mouth.
Big Dick: Cry me a river. You wanted the damn job.
Barry: Come on, cuz. Don't be like that.
Big Dick: You know, I've still got "ears" in the Justice Department. There are stories that Eric Holder is getting too big for his britches. You know anything about that?
Barry: Baseless rumors, Dick. You know how people talk...
Big Dick: Don't I, though? I've always said that Scooter was one in a million.
Barry: One in ten million, Dick. You've got a real soldier there.
Big Dick: So, what do you want? The usual? Television interview with Sean Hannity? Should I wear an eye patch and carry a coat-hanger in my sleeve?
Barry: Nothing that overt. Maybe just a chat with one of the guys at Politico. On the record, of course.
Big Dick: Of course. But, I sure am tired of the muckrakers in Congress making all those public demands for investigations. All that whining about "war profiteering." It gets tiresome.
Barry: Come on, Dick. You know I prefer to look forward.
(Long pause)
Big Dick: I suppose I could give Mike Allen a call. He always laps it up, no matter how bad it stinks.
Barry: Now you're talkin', cuz. You won't regret this.
Big Dick: Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
Barry: Well, in any case, I think we understand each other. Give Lynne a kiss for me, eh?
Last night, President Obama addressed the nation from West Point Academy, outlining his strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan. I watched the speech and came away with the distinct impression that, in stark contrast to his bungling, dishonest predecessor, the president was giving us some straight talk. His message? We're in trouble.
I felt that the president was clear-eyed and sober in his assessment of the situation. It ain't a pretty picture. And now, we can all see why this new policy has been so long in the making. (Beast Cheney, one of the pigs that is most responsible for getting us into this mess, calls it "dithering.")
Some of the passages that stood out most to me are these:
... in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Here, the president is tip-toeing around the Bush administration's most heinous crime. As adherents to the Project for a New American Century, Bush's neo-conservative puppet-masters came into the White House with an agenda. They used the 911 attacks as a vehicle to implement that agenda. That is why they declined to pursue Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. They didn't want to create headlines about significant US casualties and possibly dull the American public's appetite for war before they had had a chance to commit their Iraq crime. They succeeded and now we're left with this mess.
...as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I'm a pacifist. (At least on the macro level. Heh.) I hesitate to support any military action. Nonetheless, I say to my brothers and sisters in the peace movement that I will not be joining your protest marches yet. I believe President Obama when he says that this surge is necessary. And the president clearly states that this is not an open-ended commitment. I believe that we owe it to the Afghan people to try to leave a foundation for them, something that gives them a chance at establishing a stable home with a hopeful future. I think President Obama's plan is the only alternative that offers even a remote possibility of such.
Critics on the right will no doubt shriek: "If Bush had proposed this very policy you would have denounced him as a war-monger." To which, I reply: True enough! But Junior had already proved himself to be a liar with the Weapons of Mass Destruction canard and all the dishonesty of the pre-Iraq War debate. Junior is a fundamentally dishonest, stupid man. President Obama is made of better stuff and, so far, I believe he has been honest with me.
Also note that the date at which President Obama projects a commencement of troop withdrawals is 18 months from now: June 2011. This should be proof positive that the president is making his decision based on the deliberations of his national security team without regard to politics. If politics were his main concern, he would either begin withdrawal immediately to satisfy the left-wing of his base, or would name a date beyond the 2012 election, to inoculate himself from right-wing criticism. (And what a contrast from the previous administration, where its chief political operative, Karl Rove, sat in on policy meetings with regularity.)
... This effort [to shore up the Afghan government] must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
This is a message aimed right at Bush lackey Hamid Karzai. The puppet regime installed by Junior and the gang is notoriously corrupt. There are reports that Karzai's own brother, Ahmed Karzai, is an opium baron. President Obama makes clear that this is not acceptable. Although it will rankle the Zombie King, Hamid Karzai will no longer be able to continue as a glorified corporate warlord courtesy of the US taxpayer. This is good news.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
I felt reassured by this statement. President Obama recognizes the importance of Pakistan. An unstable Pakistan is a lit fuse that threatens to detonate a full-scale global war. Anyone who can't see that just isn't paying attention.
...there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
This is a thoughtful rebuttal to the argument put forth by Mad Johnny McCain which asserts that by setting a "date certain" to begin withdrawal, we provide the Taliban with valuable information about the limits of American resolve. I find the rebuttal to be effective and reasonable. Nonetheless, the Republicans will continue with McCain's line of attack. As Air America radio host Ron Reagan said last night, the President has made himself vulnerable with this policy and the GOP will now make it Job One to portray it as a failure.
I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
A noble sentiment. And I hope the president can succeed in achieving unity. But I have grave doubts about the possibilities for his success. I have great disdain and contempt for the right-wing freaks that make so much noise and cause so much destruction. If the president can help me to overcome that contempt I will be grateful and glad.
America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.
This is not a happy message full of slogans and braggadocio like those we heard ad nauseum from Junior. This is straight talk.
Well, Mr. President, I'm on board for now. Godspeed.
