TW: This is a classic shot of JFK. One wonders (perhaps without the jacket) how often Obama will strike the pose in the coming months and years.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Loneliest Job In the World
TW: This is a classic shot of JFK. One wonders (perhaps without the jacket) how often Obama will strike the pose in the coming months and years.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Obama Unplugged
TW: Boston Phoenix clipped the audio version of "Audacity of Hope" where Obama was discussing some comments from friends during his younger days. The lines when taken in isolation are pretty amusing.
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-this.aspx
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-this.aspx
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Cut Taxes...Cut Taxes....Cut Taxes...Cut Taxes...Watch the Deficit
TW: Yada, yada, yada. The hypocrisy of the Republicans is depressing as usual and this time around perhaps literally. The Republicans have been facilitating massive federal budget deficits since Ronald Reagan. To me Reagan's most permanent (and damaging) legacy was the shattering of the notion of fiscal responsibility. Republicans speak a big game about cutting spending but NEVER do and in fact have watched spending explode to fund defense and wars. What the Republicans have done is cut taxes for the wealthy, thereby perpetuating massive deficits.
Now the PR machine is revving up. I actually despite my revulsion pay attention to several right wing sites in order try to avoid a Dem echo chamber effect. The Republican PR machine moves in lockstep efficiency. The themes are now apparent:
1) suddenly after 30 years of profligacy deficits matter
2) cut taxes massively and permanently
Those two themes manage a degree of cross-hypocrisy rarely achieved. First, did we hear about deficits from the Republicans in the 80's, NO. Did they vote for the Clinton budget in '93 that balanced the budget, NO. Did W. Bush care about deficits, most definitely NOT. But now...
now deficits matter kinda...
They matter if the Dems want to initiate stimulus spending to support demand when demand is cratering. But apparently it does not matter enough to avoid their ideologically hollow fetish for tax cuts for the wealthy. Understand Obama has proposed since the primaries a tax cut for the middle class and promises now to push for the cut. What the Republicans want is to enshrine W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy into perpetuity and slash most corporate tax rates also in perpetuity.
Recall Larry Kudlow's creed: "top earners are the economic activists...They’re the ones who buy the yachts, which are built by blue-collar workers...It is they who energize free-market capitalism"
How we would balance the budget after cutting taxes again by trillions is unanswered by the Republican PR machine (because we know once cut any move to reverse the cut would entail...tax increases!!! god forbid). But hypocrisy avoidance has never been a strong suit for the Republicans.
Now the PR machine is revving up. I actually despite my revulsion pay attention to several right wing sites in order try to avoid a Dem echo chamber effect. The Republican PR machine moves in lockstep efficiency. The themes are now apparent:
1) suddenly after 30 years of profligacy deficits matter
2) cut taxes massively and permanently
Those two themes manage a degree of cross-hypocrisy rarely achieved. First, did we hear about deficits from the Republicans in the 80's, NO. Did they vote for the Clinton budget in '93 that balanced the budget, NO. Did W. Bush care about deficits, most definitely NOT. But now...
now deficits matter kinda...
They matter if the Dems want to initiate stimulus spending to support demand when demand is cratering. But apparently it does not matter enough to avoid their ideologically hollow fetish for tax cuts for the wealthy. Understand Obama has proposed since the primaries a tax cut for the middle class and promises now to push for the cut. What the Republicans want is to enshrine W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy into perpetuity and slash most corporate tax rates also in perpetuity.
Recall Larry Kudlow's creed: "top earners are the economic activists...They’re the ones who buy the yachts, which are built by blue-collar workers...It is they who energize free-market capitalism"
How we would balance the budget after cutting taxes again by trillions is unanswered by the Republican PR machine (because we know once cut any move to reverse the cut would entail...tax increases!!! god forbid). But hypocrisy avoidance has never been a strong suit for the Republicans.
Friday, January 9, 2009
This Is Going To Take Some Getting Used To
TW: A POTUS who responds to a question with nuance, intellectual depth and subtlety without interjecting a hi,hi or something...
"Never Waste a Good Crisis" (to be cont.)
TW: I am not sure who came up with that quote but it should apply to our current economic predicament. Me thinks folks are ready for some new stuff. I do not see Obama taking government down crazy new paths but unlike the Republicans who have spent the past thirty years running for office on dismantling government, I see Obama trying unashamedly to make government work more effectively. One can see that in his appointments of pragmatists and creation of some new posts to try to more effectively garner results from governance.
The reality is the Republicans did not dismantle much government, they certainly did not reduce spending and they created a huge bureaucracy known as Homeland Security.
There will be some infrastructure spending, some tax abatements and other stuff. Regardless of how the ratio of spending to tax abatements work out for the next year or so the bigger question is what will happen in the longer-term. Obama has started to open the Pandora's box of entitlements.
But will he succeed in actually addressing the problem. The problem has not been addressed because the people's collective will has not been harnessed sufficiently to do so. Generating the collective will require a tremendously talented and popular POTUS married up with a historical inflection point when the populace is ready or at least scared enough to try change and sacrifice. I think we may be at such a confluence.
The relatively piddling issue Economist brings up about getting some Republican cooperation on the "stimulus" bill or corralling his own Dems is not the point. Are we ready to attack the long-term? What attacking the long-term will be for future posts.
From Economist:
"President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's attempts to contain federal spending.
Those are the third and third-and-a-half rails, respectively, of American politics...Will a president with an 82% approval rating be any more lucky? It'll depend on the approach, but given the problems he's already had with senators bucking some of his nominees, and squabbling over the appointment to his Senate seat the Democrats might not bite. The advantage for Mr Obama is that Republicans are queasy about supporting any new spending without entitlement reform. Perhaps that's what this is about"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/01/barack_obama_and_the_entitleme.cfm
The reality is the Republicans did not dismantle much government, they certainly did not reduce spending and they created a huge bureaucracy known as Homeland Security.
There will be some infrastructure spending, some tax abatements and other stuff. Regardless of how the ratio of spending to tax abatements work out for the next year or so the bigger question is what will happen in the longer-term. Obama has started to open the Pandora's box of entitlements.
But will he succeed in actually addressing the problem. The problem has not been addressed because the people's collective will has not been harnessed sufficiently to do so. Generating the collective will require a tremendously talented and popular POTUS married up with a historical inflection point when the populace is ready or at least scared enough to try change and sacrifice. I think we may be at such a confluence.
The relatively piddling issue Economist brings up about getting some Republican cooperation on the "stimulus" bill or corralling his own Dems is not the point. Are we ready to attack the long-term? What attacking the long-term will be for future posts.
From Economist:
"President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's attempts to contain federal spending.
Those are the third and third-and-a-half rails, respectively, of American politics...Will a president with an 82% approval rating be any more lucky? It'll depend on the approach, but given the problems he's already had with senators bucking some of his nominees, and squabbling over the appointment to his Senate seat the Democrats might not bite. The advantage for Mr Obama is that Republicans are queasy about supporting any new spending without entitlement reform. Perhaps that's what this is about"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/01/barack_obama_and_the_entitleme.cfm
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Things I Would LIke To See In 2009: Funding Reduced For the Dept Of Homeland Security
TW: This article summarizes well my feelings on the Dept of Homeland Security. Starting with the term Homeland which has always had an Orwellian stench to me, the DHS has been a bi-partisan sinkhole for money providing minimal actual security. Yet I am highly confident the department will only grow not shrink regardless of whom our POTUS is now or in the future. There is never a constituency to reduce crime fighting regardless of the spending inefficacy.
From the New Republic:
"...although Chertoff has performed impressively in an impossible job, the department is hard to justify with any rational analysis of costs and benefits. On the contrary, it's arguably one of the most expensive marketing ventures in political history--an enterprise that seeks to make us feel safer instead of actually making us safer. The best argument for DHS is that the illusion of safety may itself provide tangible psychological and economic benefits: If people feel less afraid, they may be more likely to fly on planes. But even if conceived on these terms--as a more-than-$40-billion-dollar-a-year pacifier--the department is hard to defend, since there's no good evidence that it has, in fact, calmed Americans down rather than making us more nervous.
The only way of calming people down is political leadership that puts the terrorist threat in perspective. But, despite efforts by Chertoff to avoid the color-coded hysteria that defined the department in its early days, DHS officials inevitably feel pressure to exaggerate the terrorist threat--scaremongering that creates further public demand for promises of security that can't be fulfilled. And so the very existence of DHS creates a chain reaction of self-justifying insecurity. For this reason, Republicans (who used to be the stiff-upper-lip party of limited government) and Democrats (who don't trust the government to run the war in Iraq and are generally cautious about spending too much on defense) are willing to sink billions into an institutional money pit that has more to do with symbols than substance. Both parties seem incapable of acknowledging an uncomfortable but increasingly obvious truth: that the Department of Homeland Security was a bureaucratic and philosophical mistake."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5248f065-cbd3-4264-ac58-cffdfd947a22
From the New Republic:
"...although Chertoff has performed impressively in an impossible job, the department is hard to justify with any rational analysis of costs and benefits. On the contrary, it's arguably one of the most expensive marketing ventures in political history--an enterprise that seeks to make us feel safer instead of actually making us safer. The best argument for DHS is that the illusion of safety may itself provide tangible psychological and economic benefits: If people feel less afraid, they may be more likely to fly on planes. But even if conceived on these terms--as a more-than-$40-billion-dollar-a-year pacifier--the department is hard to defend, since there's no good evidence that it has, in fact, calmed Americans down rather than making us more nervous.
The only way of calming people down is political leadership that puts the terrorist threat in perspective. But, despite efforts by Chertoff to avoid the color-coded hysteria that defined the department in its early days, DHS officials inevitably feel pressure to exaggerate the terrorist threat--scaremongering that creates further public demand for promises of security that can't be fulfilled. And so the very existence of DHS creates a chain reaction of self-justifying insecurity. For this reason, Republicans (who used to be the stiff-upper-lip party of limited government) and Democrats (who don't trust the government to run the war in Iraq and are generally cautious about spending too much on defense) are willing to sink billions into an institutional money pit that has more to do with symbols than substance. Both parties seem incapable of acknowledging an uncomfortable but increasingly obvious truth: that the Department of Homeland Security was a bureaucratic and philosophical mistake."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5248f065-cbd3-4264-ac58-cffdfd947a22
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
T Minus 13 Days
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
TW: Comforting to see BHO so close to taking charge and always inspiring to see our POTUSes transitioning power seamlessly regardless of who they are.
The Panetta Pick
TW: A couple of folks have asked about he Leon Panetta pick for CIA. I like it. A couple of Dem Senators getting hissy about the protocol of the pick does not bother me but Panetta is another strong player brought in by Obama. Long-time key player in the House for the Dems as well as Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, Panetta is positioned to bring reform to an agency that always seems to need some reform but rarely gets it. Craig "Curmudgeon" Crawford likes the pick as well.
From Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"Barack Obama might be quite wise to go with a CIA chief who is not an intelligence community careerist. Leon Panetta is no dummy even if he does lack spook background. And it could be a hint that the new president is paying attention to the experiences of predecessors like John Kennedy, who always regretted listening too closely to CIA pros in his first weeks at the White House...[TW: Crawford then goes into the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco]"
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/01/obamas-cia-choice-a-smart-move.html
TW: Also from Crawford who seems to be warming the BHO after alot of skepticism during the campaign:
"With each new announcement of Barack Obama's choices for those who will help him govern, most seem to reinforce a pattern that defines his style. Call it Competent Change.
The sometimes radical feel of his campaign -- the hip poster art, web savvy outreach and appeals to anti-war voters -- led many who watched Obama's operation, and probably a lot of his supporters, to think that Washington was in for a sweeping overhaul run by outsiders.
Instead, Obama's idea of change seems to be less dramatic than advertised. But that does not mean that the status quo will be maintained. He is building a team that brings competence and experience to the work of making a difference.
Changing Washington from the inside requires players who actually know how the place works."
From Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"Barack Obama might be quite wise to go with a CIA chief who is not an intelligence community careerist. Leon Panetta is no dummy even if he does lack spook background. And it could be a hint that the new president is paying attention to the experiences of predecessors like John Kennedy, who always regretted listening too closely to CIA pros in his first weeks at the White House...[TW: Crawford then goes into the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco]"
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/01/obamas-cia-choice-a-smart-move.html
TW: Also from Crawford who seems to be warming the BHO after alot of skepticism during the campaign:
"With each new announcement of Barack Obama's choices for those who will help him govern, most seem to reinforce a pattern that defines his style. Call it Competent Change.
The sometimes radical feel of his campaign -- the hip poster art, web savvy outreach and appeals to anti-war voters -- led many who watched Obama's operation, and probably a lot of his supporters, to think that Washington was in for a sweeping overhaul run by outsiders.
Instead, Obama's idea of change seems to be less dramatic than advertised. But that does not mean that the status quo will be maintained. He is building a team that brings competence and experience to the work of making a difference.
Changing Washington from the inside requires players who actually know how the place works."
Monday, January 5, 2009
Another Weak Chicago Pol: Bobby Rush
TW: Bobby Rush is playing with yesterday's playbook. His brand of racial politics seems as out of place as those Republicans re-using their own tired recipes. As Economist notes, the last thing anyone, African-American or otherwise, should want is a scandal tainted, desperate and ultimately somewhat sad politico like Roland Burris representing them as a symbol in the Senate. Yet folks like Rush keep pressing in their divisive way for just that.
From the Economist:
"BOBBY RUSH, the Black Panther-turned-Chicago congressman, had condemned Governor Rod Blagojevich as fiercely as anyone in Illinois. Then Mr Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris—the most desperate-for-work man we've seen since Jack Lemmon's character in Glengarry Glen Ross—to Barack Obama's Senate seat. Voila! In a week, Mr Rush has become the most shameless race-baiting pol in America. A day-by-day guide:
•"I would ask you the not hang or lynch the appointee... I don't think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate." (December 30)
• "I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I'm sure that the US Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position." (December 31)
• "[The Senate is] the last bastion of plantation politics."
(January 4)
The irony, according to black political columnist Clarence Page and Harry Reid, in his Meet the Press Sunday interview: if Mr Rush had his way, Barack Obama would have never been in the Senate. Bitter about a re-election campaign he fought with Mr Obama in 2000, Mr Rush dissed his old opponent in 2004 and endorsed rival, white Senate candidate Blair Hull, whose memorable achievements were making millions of dollars and beating his wife.
So... by his own standards, is Bobby Rush a modern Orval Faubus or a real-life Simon Legree? Probably the latter. After all, what's the good for black America of having the only black senator be a fool selected in a corrupt bargain?"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/01/dialacliche_bobby_rush_edition.cfm
From the Economist:
"BOBBY RUSH, the Black Panther-turned-Chicago congressman, had condemned Governor Rod Blagojevich as fiercely as anyone in Illinois. Then Mr Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris—the most desperate-for-work man we've seen since Jack Lemmon's character in Glengarry Glen Ross—to Barack Obama's Senate seat. Voila! In a week, Mr Rush has become the most shameless race-baiting pol in America. A day-by-day guide:
•"I would ask you the not hang or lynch the appointee... I don't think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate." (December 30)
• "I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I'm sure that the US Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position." (December 31)
• "[The Senate is] the last bastion of plantation politics."
(January 4)
The irony, according to black political columnist Clarence Page and Harry Reid, in his Meet the Press Sunday interview: if Mr Rush had his way, Barack Obama would have never been in the Senate. Bitter about a re-election campaign he fought with Mr Obama in 2000, Mr Rush dissed his old opponent in 2004 and endorsed rival, white Senate candidate Blair Hull, whose memorable achievements were making millions of dollars and beating his wife.
So... by his own standards, is Bobby Rush a modern Orval Faubus or a real-life Simon Legree? Probably the latter. After all, what's the good for black America of having the only black senator be a fool selected in a corrupt bargain?"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/01/dialacliche_bobby_rush_edition.cfm
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: Open Up Cuba Relations
TW: It has now been 50 years since Castro ascended to power in Cuba. Our 49 years of sanctions have made the reactionary Cuban exiles feel empowered but have accomplished little else. Yes Castro has some repressive policies but if you think that is why we have maintained the sanctions then you would be wrong. It is time to move on and perhaps provide a nice economic stimulus for our own economy in the process.
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Return Of Competence (cont.): Trading Much Liberty For a Little More Security
TW: Part 2 of Cohen's piece focuses on Obama re-asserting respect for constitutional law. This is by no means a given, most POTUSes run afoul of the Constitution one way or the other, but some push the envelope too far. The Bush Administration set new lows. In the piece Cohen focuses on the diminution of habeus corpus under Bush. When we start cutting serious corners with the law in the pursuit of some sort of ephemeral security, we more than erode our corresponding liberty.
From Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"I'm thankful for many things right now, despite the stock market, and first among them is the fact that the next U.S. commander-in-chief is a constitutional law expert and former law professor.
...the law, which is what defines the United States, for it is a nation of laws. Or was until Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, unfurled what the late historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called "the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history."
There is no need to rehash here the whole sordid history of the Bush administration's work on Vice President Dick Cheney's "dark side": the "enhanced" interrogation techniques in "black sites" outside the United States justified by invocation of a "New Paradigm" that rendered the Geneva Conventions "quaint."
When governments veer onto the dark side, language always goes murky. Direct speech makes dirty deeds too clear. A new paradigm sounds bland enough. What it meant was trashing habeas corpus...
...Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those "enhanced" techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.
What they got on release was a single piece of paper from the U.S. government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.
Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:
"An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible."
That's it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan's life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.
We have "the deciding official," not an officer, or a judge. We have "the information about you," not allegations, or accusations, let alone charges. We have "a decision about what will happen to you," not a judgment, ruling or verdict. This is the lexicon of totalitarianism. It is acutely embarrassing to the United States...
That is why I am thankful above all that the next U.S. commander-in-chief is a constitutional lawyer. Nothing has been more damaging to the United States than debasing the legal principles at the heart of the American idea...Give thanks on this day for the law. It's what stands between the shining city on a hill and the dark side.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edcohen.php
Part 1 is here
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/12/return-of-competence.html
From Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"I'm thankful for many things right now, despite the stock market, and first among them is the fact that the next U.S. commander-in-chief is a constitutional law expert and former law professor.
...the law, which is what defines the United States, for it is a nation of laws. Or was until Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, unfurled what the late historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called "the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history."
There is no need to rehash here the whole sordid history of the Bush administration's work on Vice President Dick Cheney's "dark side": the "enhanced" interrogation techniques in "black sites" outside the United States justified by invocation of a "New Paradigm" that rendered the Geneva Conventions "quaint."
When governments veer onto the dark side, language always goes murky. Direct speech makes dirty deeds too clear. A new paradigm sounds bland enough. What it meant was trashing habeas corpus...
...Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those "enhanced" techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.
What they got on release was a single piece of paper from the U.S. government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.
Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:
"An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible."
That's it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan's life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.
We have "the deciding official," not an officer, or a judge. We have "the information about you," not allegations, or accusations, let alone charges. We have "a decision about what will happen to you," not a judgment, ruling or verdict. This is the lexicon of totalitarianism. It is acutely embarrassing to the United States...
That is why I am thankful above all that the next U.S. commander-in-chief is a constitutional lawyer. Nothing has been more damaging to the United States than debasing the legal principles at the heart of the American idea...Give thanks on this day for the law. It's what stands between the shining city on a hill and the dark side.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edcohen.php
Part 1 is here
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/12/return-of-competence.html
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama Will Not Replicate Bush Foreign Policy
TW: Another good one from Barnett, as usual he does a great job framing his topic. This week it calmly outlining how destructive the Bush foreign policy was while de-bunking the somewhat amazing effort by the neo-cons (the WSJ editorial page is toxic and has been forever) to claim Obama will continue their deeply flawed policies.
From Tom Barnett:
"The Wall Street Journal has been running an editorial campaign designed to convince the American public that the Barack Obama administration will constitute a third Bush term in foreign policy. Arguing that the president-elect's cabinet choices in national security portend more continuation than change, we are treated to a highly deceptive repackaging of the Bush legacy.
The truth is that the Bush administration bankrupted America's international standing through a half-decade of vigorous unilateralism that began before 9/11 and was turbocharged thereafter, the most stunning example being our government's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in December 2001 - the first time we've ever broken a strategic arms limitation agreement...
But the fact remains that on basically every big call, Bush-Cheney went out of their way to assert America's perceived primacy in great-power politics.
We toppled Saddam on our timetable and ran the postwar occupation with no regard to the interests of other states.
Based on our own declarations of authority, we have routinely intervened militarily inside numerous sovereign states in search of terrorists of our own designation, killing them at will.
When we've caught these terrorists, we've imprisoned them and sought their prosecution in our own military tribunals, ignoring the growing jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
And, when that wasn't convenient, our government has summarily "rendered" them to allies we know will torture them.
These initial steps weren't wrong in every instance. History has periodically demanded innovative U.S. leadership in international security affairs.
But the Bush administration went out of its way - time and time again - to tell the world that America would do what it must to protect itself in its self-declared "global war" and that, if our actions weren't welcome by other governments, well - that was just too damn bad.
Being as powerful and angry as we were after 9/11, the rest of the world basically got out of our way for the next three years. In turn, we dug our own graves with this persistent unilateralism, forcing our troops to fight two distant wars under the worst strategic situation: beset on all sides by spoilers and increasingly denuded of allies.
And when our cost in blood and treasure became prohibitively high, and it became clear even to the White House that America was being contained and counter-balanced and thwarted by other great powers in further attempts at unilateral actions - such as Bush-Cheney's open toying with the notion of military strikes on Iran, then and only then did this tiger change its stripes.
After the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm election, our Mr. Hyde was decisively subsumed within Dr. Jeckyl and the Iraq War was basically outsourced to those military leaders who had long championed a change in strategy there.
We now witness a similarly sensible resetting of strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush-Cheney's stunning course correction unfolded under conditions of extreme duress; the world having figuratively thrown its shoes at America's head of state, our leadership was lame enough to duck.
But worse, by our example we have encouraged copycat behavior by other great powers, such as Russia vis-a-vis Georgia or - God forbid - possibly soon India against Pakistan.
If Obama's national security picks - a true team of pragmatists - signals anything, it's that our incoming administration clearly recognizes just how out of synch with the rest of the world's great powers America has become..."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/21/obama-is-not-bushs-third-term/
From Tom Barnett:
"The Wall Street Journal has been running an editorial campaign designed to convince the American public that the Barack Obama administration will constitute a third Bush term in foreign policy. Arguing that the president-elect's cabinet choices in national security portend more continuation than change, we are treated to a highly deceptive repackaging of the Bush legacy.
The truth is that the Bush administration bankrupted America's international standing through a half-decade of vigorous unilateralism that began before 9/11 and was turbocharged thereafter, the most stunning example being our government's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in December 2001 - the first time we've ever broken a strategic arms limitation agreement...
But the fact remains that on basically every big call, Bush-Cheney went out of their way to assert America's perceived primacy in great-power politics.
We toppled Saddam on our timetable and ran the postwar occupation with no regard to the interests of other states.
Based on our own declarations of authority, we have routinely intervened militarily inside numerous sovereign states in search of terrorists of our own designation, killing them at will.
When we've caught these terrorists, we've imprisoned them and sought their prosecution in our own military tribunals, ignoring the growing jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
And, when that wasn't convenient, our government has summarily "rendered" them to allies we know will torture them.
These initial steps weren't wrong in every instance. History has periodically demanded innovative U.S. leadership in international security affairs.
But the Bush administration went out of its way - time and time again - to tell the world that America would do what it must to protect itself in its self-declared "global war" and that, if our actions weren't welcome by other governments, well - that was just too damn bad.
Being as powerful and angry as we were after 9/11, the rest of the world basically got out of our way for the next three years. In turn, we dug our own graves with this persistent unilateralism, forcing our troops to fight two distant wars under the worst strategic situation: beset on all sides by spoilers and increasingly denuded of allies.
And when our cost in blood and treasure became prohibitively high, and it became clear even to the White House that America was being contained and counter-balanced and thwarted by other great powers in further attempts at unilateral actions - such as Bush-Cheney's open toying with the notion of military strikes on Iran, then and only then did this tiger change its stripes.
After the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm election, our Mr. Hyde was decisively subsumed within Dr. Jeckyl and the Iraq War was basically outsourced to those military leaders who had long championed a change in strategy there.
We now witness a similarly sensible resetting of strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush-Cheney's stunning course correction unfolded under conditions of extreme duress; the world having figuratively thrown its shoes at America's head of state, our leadership was lame enough to duck.
But worse, by our example we have encouraged copycat behavior by other great powers, such as Russia vis-a-vis Georgia or - God forbid - possibly soon India against Pakistan.
If Obama's national security picks - a true team of pragmatists - signals anything, it's that our incoming administration clearly recognizes just how out of synch with the rest of the world's great powers America has become..."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/21/obama-is-not-bushs-third-term/
Saturday, December 20, 2008
T Minus One Month....
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Presidential Campaign In Five Minutes
TW: TPM does a nice re-cap of the general election campaign in five minutes.
Are the Dems the Corrupt Party Now?
TW: No is the short answer or at least not yet anyway although they are working on it. Corruption follows power almost in perfect correlation. If so, the Dems given their growing power will become increasingly susceptible to corruption and its corrosive effects on maintaining power. Corruption is one of those regulators which help keep any single party from retaining power indefinitely.
Those Dems who claimed righteous immunity as a party relative to corruption, especially of the bribery and/or sex related type, were naive and wrong. However, those Republicans seeking to tar the Dems as the new Republicans, if you will, relative to corruption are jumping the gun. Give us time. Unless, of course, the new POTUS can set a fresh example despite the inevitable forces pulling him and more importantly his people towards the dark side.
From Economist:
"...The image problem that sunk the last Republican congress wasn't the outrageous actions of a few members. The ceiling didn't come down because of..Mark Foley... Voters were convinced that congressional Republicans had become the tools of lobbyists, at best unaccountable and at worst corrupt. Republican bragging about the K Street Project—which drew business lobbyists away from the Democrats—backfired. Illegal donations and deals brought down teams of congressmen and senators. The Jack Abramoff scandal, all by itself, brought down at least ten congressmen and senators who resigned or were defeated.
Republicans need to figure this out before they build a quilt out of the disconnected scandals—Rod Blagojevich (money), William Jefferson (money), Tim Mahoney (sex), Kwame Kilpatrick (sex and money)...
It was the shorter, more widespread House banking scandal that convinced Americans not to trust the Democrats. In 1992, voters learned that 355 former or current members of the House had overdrawn their accounts at the congressional bank. Dozens of congressmen resigned in disgrace, and more were defeated at the polls.
Unless voters are convinced that the party in power is collaborating to game the system, or that it's blowing a major national crisis (as with the 2006 Republicans and the Iraq War), they don't kick it out. Individual scandals don't a "culture of corruption" make."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/subculture_of_corruption.cfm
Those Dems who claimed righteous immunity as a party relative to corruption, especially of the bribery and/or sex related type, were naive and wrong. However, those Republicans seeking to tar the Dems as the new Republicans, if you will, relative to corruption are jumping the gun. Give us time. Unless, of course, the new POTUS can set a fresh example despite the inevitable forces pulling him and more importantly his people towards the dark side.
From Economist:
"...The image problem that sunk the last Republican congress wasn't the outrageous actions of a few members. The ceiling didn't come down because of..Mark Foley... Voters were convinced that congressional Republicans had become the tools of lobbyists, at best unaccountable and at worst corrupt. Republican bragging about the K Street Project—which drew business lobbyists away from the Democrats—backfired. Illegal donations and deals brought down teams of congressmen and senators. The Jack Abramoff scandal, all by itself, brought down at least ten congressmen and senators who resigned or were defeated.
Republicans need to figure this out before they build a quilt out of the disconnected scandals—Rod Blagojevich (money), William Jefferson (money), Tim Mahoney (sex), Kwame Kilpatrick (sex and money)...
It was the shorter, more widespread House banking scandal that convinced Americans not to trust the Democrats. In 1992, voters learned that 355 former or current members of the House had overdrawn their accounts at the congressional bank. Dozens of congressmen resigned in disgrace, and more were defeated at the polls.
Unless voters are convinced that the party in power is collaborating to game the system, or that it's blowing a major national crisis (as with the 2006 Republicans and the Iraq War), they don't kick it out. Individual scandals don't a "culture of corruption" make."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/subculture_of_corruption.cfm
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rick Warren Invocator As Provocateur
From NBC:
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Approving the People Not the Policies
From Craig Crawford:
"Yikes, not only does Karl Rove approve of Barack Obama's national security team. So does Dick Cheney. What is going on here? As a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama could not have been more scathing in his critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy. But as president-elect, Obama appears to be installing a continuation of the incumbent's agenda. Wow, what happened to change? Or did Obama learn something in those secret intelligence briefings that perhaps the rest of us would be better off not knowing?"
TW: Crawford makes the huge leap that since Rove and Cheney express comfort with some of the personnel selected by Obama (Clinton, Gates, Jones) that Obama is now no longer for change. Crawford apparently did not read the Cheney interview. While Cheney expressed admiration for some of the Obama picks (but not say Susan Rice UN Amb.-nominee), Crawford ignored Cheney's continued dogmatic support for policies Obama strongly opposes (torture, Guantanamo, the need to have attacked Iraq originally). It is not the people, it is the policy. Again who has a greater chance of changing policy a bunch of doctrinaire doves or a group of moderates commanded by a progressive?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Yikes, not only does Karl Rove approve of Barack Obama's national security team. So does Dick Cheney. What is going on here? As a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama could not have been more scathing in his critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy. But as president-elect, Obama appears to be installing a continuation of the incumbent's agenda. Wow, what happened to change? Or did Obama learn something in those secret intelligence briefings that perhaps the rest of us would be better off not knowing?"
TW: Crawford makes the huge leap that since Rove and Cheney express comfort with some of the personnel selected by Obama (Clinton, Gates, Jones) that Obama is now no longer for change. Crawford apparently did not read the Cheney interview. While Cheney expressed admiration for some of the Obama picks (but not say Susan Rice UN Amb.-nominee), Crawford ignored Cheney's continued dogmatic support for policies Obama strongly opposes (torture, Guantanamo, the need to have attacked Iraq originally). It is not the people, it is the policy. Again who has a greater chance of changing policy a bunch of doctrinaire doves or a group of moderates commanded by a progressive?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)