Sometimes you come to a point in a situation where a previously held position needs some serious rethinking. Iraq and Afghanistan now fall in that category for me. All three of my older brothers were actively engaged in World War II. In 1945, my oldest brother, whom I lost last year, was in the Philippines preparing for what was to be the imminent, massive invasion of the Japanese islands.
Then, unexpectedly, the most destructive secret weapon ever developed unleashed its overwhelming fury on Hiroshima and Nagasaki –and within days it was all over. Harvey, Roger and Roland would come home with their minds and bodies intact. Ours was one of those lucky American families. And my life would be forever enriched from the experience and brotherhood of these three street-wise kids who somehow made it through.
After Pearl Harbor, the objective was clear: Mobilize. Get the troops to Europe and to the Pacific – fast. Do whatever it takes. Gear up the entire economy for victory. Finish it. Don’t let a vanquished enemy dictate post-war terms. Above all, finish it.
It’s fundamentally different now – many of our leaders seem to have lost sight of true north, and Congress has gradually shifted its war-declaration responsibilities to the White House, hiding behind lukewarm war authorizations which have resulted in finger-wagging every which way, especially when an administration changes hands. Most wretchedly of all, our leaders don’t know when to fight and when to stay home.
But this one thing is clear: If Iraq and Afghanistan were George’s wars then, they are Barack’s wars now. So what will he do to end those with victory and honor? Truman never complained that he “inherited” WWII from FDR. He came in as a relief pitcher and ended the game decisively. The ball is now in the hands of Barack Obama. Thousands of American families with blood in the game are waiting.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Was It Just a Father’s Day Fluke?
If you found yourself at the Bridgewater Commons Mall on the Saturday before Father’s Day, you would have been hard pressed to think that there is a recession still swirling around us. The parking lots were full of cars; traffic was speeding in lanes around the perimeter; and, inside, it looked like the beginning of the Christmas shopping season.
Priscille has justifiably been after me to get a new suit (haven’t bought one since I left AT&T), and she had spotted some good advertised Macy’s values in the local press. When we arrived at mid-afternoon, Darryl, the associate in the men’s department, told us that a line of shoppers had formed at the very onset of the morning opening. At 3:30 pm, there was still no sign that shoppers were worn out.
It looked like there’s still plenty of money flowing in these parts. But I was quickly brought back to reality when Priscille told me of a conversation that she had with another wife, while waiting for us guys to try on our outfits.
The lady is a school teacher, and her husband had just been laid off: Both were shopping at Macy’s to buy him a business suit so that he would look his best at job interviews. Sort of brings everything back down to earth, doesn’t it?
I remember back in January, when the newly-minted Obama administration twisted every arm in Washington, intoning that billions in stimulus money would be needed to revive the economy. It would save or create three to three and a half million jobs we were promised.
Don’t bother about how to count all those ‘saved’ jobs. Employment numbers have since gone south steadily by the hundreds of thousands each month. On Saturday, we learned about one of those casualties at the Bridgewater Commons Mall.
If you are the one losing your job, the unemployment rate is 100%.
Priscille has justifiably been after me to get a new suit (haven’t bought one since I left AT&T), and she had spotted some good advertised Macy’s values in the local press. When we arrived at mid-afternoon, Darryl, the associate in the men’s department, told us that a line of shoppers had formed at the very onset of the morning opening. At 3:30 pm, there was still no sign that shoppers were worn out.
It looked like there’s still plenty of money flowing in these parts. But I was quickly brought back to reality when Priscille told me of a conversation that she had with another wife, while waiting for us guys to try on our outfits.
The lady is a school teacher, and her husband had just been laid off: Both were shopping at Macy’s to buy him a business suit so that he would look his best at job interviews. Sort of brings everything back down to earth, doesn’t it?
I remember back in January, when the newly-minted Obama administration twisted every arm in Washington, intoning that billions in stimulus money would be needed to revive the economy. It would save or create three to three and a half million jobs we were promised.
Don’t bother about how to count all those ‘saved’ jobs. Employment numbers have since gone south steadily by the hundreds of thousands each month. On Saturday, we learned about one of those casualties at the Bridgewater Commons Mall.
If you are the one losing your job, the unemployment rate is 100%.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Congress Continues to Sidestep Major War Decisions
The recent exchange of words between House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, concerning detainee interrogation techniques reminds me of just how spineless some members of Congress can be when it comes to taking a stand on what they do and why they do it.
Today, tucked inside the pages of a regional newspaper was a short article about a Rutgers University professor who just lost his case in Federal Court. The professor had sued to have the 2003 invasion of Iraq declared unconstitutional. He claimed that only Congress has the right to declare war. He is, of course, correct.
Pelosi’s squirming about what she knew concerning alleged torture techniques and this lawsuit vividly underscores that most members of Congress will do whatever it takes not to commit one way or the other about do-or-die decisions – the most notable of which is war.
Ever since 1950, the U.S. has fought three major conflicts and is now fighting two– and not a single one of them with a declaration of war from the Congress: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, and Iraq II. For political reasons that emit a malodorous smell, Washington’s U.S. legislators of those wartime periods sidestepped their responsibility on the question of declaring war. They went along with mere “authorizations” or “resolutions.”
One might think that declarations of war are only for the warlike. You know – those right-wing nuts. But the real warlike action of Congress in those circumstances was to throw the baton from Capitol Hill to the White House, thereby abdicating its Constitutional responsibility on this most extreme of issues.
Since the Korean War began in 1950, any President with enough moxie can apparently arm-twist Congress to his obeisance. Any wonder that President Barack Obama is now able to increase war-zone troop levels seemingly at will?
Today, tucked inside the pages of a regional newspaper was a short article about a Rutgers University professor who just lost his case in Federal Court. The professor had sued to have the 2003 invasion of Iraq declared unconstitutional. He claimed that only Congress has the right to declare war. He is, of course, correct.
Pelosi’s squirming about what she knew concerning alleged torture techniques and this lawsuit vividly underscores that most members of Congress will do whatever it takes not to commit one way or the other about do-or-die decisions – the most notable of which is war.
Ever since 1950, the U.S. has fought three major conflicts and is now fighting two– and not a single one of them with a declaration of war from the Congress: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, and Iraq II. For political reasons that emit a malodorous smell, Washington’s U.S. legislators of those wartime periods sidestepped their responsibility on the question of declaring war. They went along with mere “authorizations” or “resolutions.”
One might think that declarations of war are only for the warlike. You know – those right-wing nuts. But the real warlike action of Congress in those circumstances was to throw the baton from Capitol Hill to the White House, thereby abdicating its Constitutional responsibility on this most extreme of issues.
Since the Korean War began in 1950, any President with enough moxie can apparently arm-twist Congress to his obeisance. Any wonder that President Barack Obama is now able to increase war-zone troop levels seemingly at will?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama Won’t Release Photos
Last week, in what appeared to be a surprising reversal of his prior public position, President Barack Obama stated that he will now block the release of dozens of photos reportedly showing terror suspects being questioned under not-so-friendly interrogation methods.
These EIT’s – “enhanced interrogation techniques” – call to mind the furor which resulted after the release of pictures showing the treatment of detainees by American interrogators in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison. We all know of the worldwide revulsion to which that led and of the hatred of America which it engendered, especially in the Muslim world.
The President’s purported reasons for changing his mind is that making public these previously unreleased, classified photos would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and would jeopardize U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military is strongly opposed to their release.
But the really compelling speculation is just why President Obama has chosen this moment to alienate a very large segment of his supporters by challenging the ACLU-inspired court decision which ordered the release of the interrogation photos.
Here’s my take:
President Obama is scheduled to be on an overseas trip in early June. Some of his stops will be in Buchenwald and Dresden; another will be in France to commemorate D-Day. But there is another very sensitive venue – Egypt.
This is why I believe he has now chosen to challenge the release of those photos: On June 4th, on Egyptian soil, President Barack Obama will follow through on a campaign promise to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world. In his delivery, he is expected to focus upon America’s relationship with Islam.
Think about it: If he had released those photos in May and then flown to Egypt to deliver that speech just a few weeks later in early June, the Abu-Ghraib-like reaction to those photos would have been at its peak. Not a very favorable environment in which to try to convince Muslims that we are nice guys trying to co-exist!
Each and every decision made in Washington is thoroughly scrubbed for its political impact. The President’s decision about not releasing those photos is barely dry from that scrubbing.
Note: You can read the ACLU’s reaction at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html
These EIT’s – “enhanced interrogation techniques” – call to mind the furor which resulted after the release of pictures showing the treatment of detainees by American interrogators in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison. We all know of the worldwide revulsion to which that led and of the hatred of America which it engendered, especially in the Muslim world.
The President’s purported reasons for changing his mind is that making public these previously unreleased, classified photos would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and would jeopardize U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military is strongly opposed to their release.
But the really compelling speculation is just why President Obama has chosen this moment to alienate a very large segment of his supporters by challenging the ACLU-inspired court decision which ordered the release of the interrogation photos.
Here’s my take:
President Obama is scheduled to be on an overseas trip in early June. Some of his stops will be in Buchenwald and Dresden; another will be in France to commemorate D-Day. But there is another very sensitive venue – Egypt.
This is why I believe he has now chosen to challenge the release of those photos: On June 4th, on Egyptian soil, President Barack Obama will follow through on a campaign promise to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world. In his delivery, he is expected to focus upon America’s relationship with Islam.
Think about it: If he had released those photos in May and then flown to Egypt to deliver that speech just a few weeks later in early June, the Abu-Ghraib-like reaction to those photos would have been at its peak. Not a very favorable environment in which to try to convince Muslims that we are nice guys trying to co-exist!
Each and every decision made in Washington is thoroughly scrubbed for its political impact. The President’s decision about not releasing those photos is barely dry from that scrubbing.
Note: You can read the ACLU’s reaction at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
AIG, Obama & the Domino Theory
Last year, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson of the Bush Administration gave us a single untested reason why the federal government should pump billions into AIG. Under President Obama, current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner continues to endorse that policy: It is that AIG is too big to fail. The theory holds that because of its size, an AIG failure poses “a systemic risk” which would spread throughout the financial system.
This is like telling us that the financial system resembles a set of dominoes all lined up half an inch from each other. AIG, it’s implied, is the first domino in the string and, if that one is knocked down, all the others will collapse in succession. We are presented with no other options. In the 1960’s the nation fell for that line of reasoning and paid dearly for it.
Those of you who are old enough to remember the months preceding the Vietnam War (and you young ones who should have been taught the causes of that war in school) may remember that Americans were told the same thing.
The rationale for war was officially called “the domino theory.” The United States could not afford to let Vietnam fall to the communists. To do so would result in other Southeast Asian countries to be overrun by communism.
To assure that this would not happen, the U.S. dispatched thousands of young American soldiers to Vietnam; failed to support them in a bungled military operation; spent billions; and lost the war. All that and, after a disorderly American retreat, Communist North Vietnam took over the entire country.
The infamous domino theory used to justify the Vietnam War was a feckless assumption. The other dominoes did not fall.
See the connection? We are now being sold a similar financial domino theory that if AIG is allowed to go down, the other firms in the financial world will go under. Perhaps. But Americans have not been presented with alternative, less costly and more market-oriented alternatives.
Like the Vietnam era domino theory, we are expected to blindly follow the “experts,” just like those Johnson era presidential advisors, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy who kept President Lyndon Johnson in that war to its bitter end, and ruined his chances for re-election.
This is like telling us that the financial system resembles a set of dominoes all lined up half an inch from each other. AIG, it’s implied, is the first domino in the string and, if that one is knocked down, all the others will collapse in succession. We are presented with no other options. In the 1960’s the nation fell for that line of reasoning and paid dearly for it.
Those of you who are old enough to remember the months preceding the Vietnam War (and you young ones who should have been taught the causes of that war in school) may remember that Americans were told the same thing.
The rationale for war was officially called “the domino theory.” The United States could not afford to let Vietnam fall to the communists. To do so would result in other Southeast Asian countries to be overrun by communism.
To assure that this would not happen, the U.S. dispatched thousands of young American soldiers to Vietnam; failed to support them in a bungled military operation; spent billions; and lost the war. All that and, after a disorderly American retreat, Communist North Vietnam took over the entire country.
The infamous domino theory used to justify the Vietnam War was a feckless assumption. The other dominoes did not fall.
See the connection? We are now being sold a similar financial domino theory that if AIG is allowed to go down, the other firms in the financial world will go under. Perhaps. But Americans have not been presented with alternative, less costly and more market-oriented alternatives.
Like the Vietnam era domino theory, we are expected to blindly follow the “experts,” just like those Johnson era presidential advisors, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy who kept President Lyndon Johnson in that war to its bitter end, and ruined his chances for re-election.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Obama’s New Move
When President Barack Obama recently submitted his budget proposal to Congress, he also inserted a contingency for another $750 billion for more bailout funds. Had Obama stayed on that path, Congress would have been required to debate and to consider approving that additional sum. But those plans have now gone down the tubes.
The Washington anger over AIG bonuses has now spread throughout the country like a plague. This has made it functionally impossible for Obama to publicly secure a Congressional stamp of approval for the hundreds of billions of dollars of additional money that his administration needs to stimulate the purchase of currently unmarketable asset-backed securities. Should he attempt to obtain Congressional approval now, he will incite even greater outrage among Americans.
The administration’s solution is crafty: Make an end run around Congress by devising a plan which can be implemented through the executive branch. This removes the arrangement from public debate and the need for approval by the legislative branch.
Congress thus gets handed its own special bonus by being absolved of responsibility. No more personal embarrassment for the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, etc.
President Obama’s revised plan will rely heavily on public-private partnerships which will require the full voluntary participation of Wall Street hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies. Therefore, look for the Obama administration to tone down its rhetoric about corporate bonuses.
Why? Because the managers of Wall Street firms which will be requested to participate in the program will pick up their marbles and leave the playground, if their yearly bonus checks or alternate forms of compensation are at risk. To succeed with his new plan, President Obama needs Wall Street, but he can’t go public with that admission. Ironic, isn’t it?
NEXT: The Obama administration’s new stimulus plan.
The Washington anger over AIG bonuses has now spread throughout the country like a plague. This has made it functionally impossible for Obama to publicly secure a Congressional stamp of approval for the hundreds of billions of dollars of additional money that his administration needs to stimulate the purchase of currently unmarketable asset-backed securities. Should he attempt to obtain Congressional approval now, he will incite even greater outrage among Americans.
The administration’s solution is crafty: Make an end run around Congress by devising a plan which can be implemented through the executive branch. This removes the arrangement from public debate and the need for approval by the legislative branch.
Congress thus gets handed its own special bonus by being absolved of responsibility. No more personal embarrassment for the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, etc.
President Obama’s revised plan will rely heavily on public-private partnerships which will require the full voluntary participation of Wall Street hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies. Therefore, look for the Obama administration to tone down its rhetoric about corporate bonuses.
Why? Because the managers of Wall Street firms which will be requested to participate in the program will pick up their marbles and leave the playground, if their yearly bonus checks or alternate forms of compensation are at risk. To succeed with his new plan, President Obama needs Wall Street, but he can’t go public with that admission. Ironic, isn’t it?
NEXT: The Obama administration’s new stimulus plan.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Barack’s Barrage
Well, it was bound to happen: The week-long diatribe engaged in by President Barack Obama and the Congress against AIG bonuses has so fomented a populist desire for revenge, that Obama’s next move to ask Congress for another $750,000,000,000 in bailout funds has been pulled off the table and will resurface in another form.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not now and never was in favor of AIG executives getting bonuses within a company that is in severe distress, while it simultaneously accepts billions in federal cash infusions. But there is a big difference between justice and vengeance. And there is just as big a difference between seeking accountability and trotting out the guillotine.
This is America, not revolutionary France of the late 18th century where opponents’ heads were chopped off by an outraged populace. Nor is this Japan of the Samurai era where the seppuku honor code of death was employed to remit shame.
Don’t take my word for it: Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has already called for AIG executives to either “resign or go commit suicide” by falling on their swords hara-kiri style.
Grassley has since backed off from his original statement, subsequently saying that, “we need to show some act of contrition on the part of CEOs that run their corporations into the ground.” And what, Senator Grassley, do we do about Washington politicians who run their country into the ground?
MONDAY: President Obama’s Next Move.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not now and never was in favor of AIG executives getting bonuses within a company that is in severe distress, while it simultaneously accepts billions in federal cash infusions. But there is a big difference between justice and vengeance. And there is just as big a difference between seeking accountability and trotting out the guillotine.
This is America, not revolutionary France of the late 18th century where opponents’ heads were chopped off by an outraged populace. Nor is this Japan of the Samurai era where the seppuku honor code of death was employed to remit shame.
Don’t take my word for it: Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has already called for AIG executives to either “resign or go commit suicide” by falling on their swords hara-kiri style.
Grassley has since backed off from his original statement, subsequently saying that, “we need to show some act of contrition on the part of CEOs that run their corporations into the ground.” And what, Senator Grassley, do we do about Washington politicians who run their country into the ground?
MONDAY: President Obama’s Next Move.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Healthcare & You: Not So Perfect Together!
Monday, before a congressional panel, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner commented that “Healthcare costs are crippling the economy and that the U.S. is paying twice what other countries are paying.” He went on to declare that Americans are not being delivered “a quality kind of healthcare in this country,” and that we “need to reduce healthcare costs.”
Let’s get this straight: Healthcare costs are crippling the economy? I thought that the economy was already comatose due to the dastardly deeds of certain slipshod financiers, bankers, Washington politicians, and borrowers who should have known better.
Didn’t you?
For years, the word from D.C. was that it would take billions to provide the same level of quality healthcare to Americans across the board. Just couldn’t be done. Too expensive, they said. It was seen as anathema and, apparently, still is by President Obama who is using Geithner as his proxy to convince Congress that payments to health care providers need to be reduced.
Let me pinch myself again: The Secretary of the Treasury and the President both say it’s OK to dole out billions – soon to be trillions – to heal the self-inflicted wounds of the financial system’s largest participants now feeding at the trough of the U.S. Treasury.
But, according to Geithner and Obama, it’s a transgression – a grave one indeed – to provide excellence in healthcare without cutting payments to the highly talented medical professionals and institutions that provide those services.
One more thing: Why is Congress permitting Geithner to testify alone, without a countervailing, expert voice from the medical profession?
Let’s get this straight: Healthcare costs are crippling the economy? I thought that the economy was already comatose due to the dastardly deeds of certain slipshod financiers, bankers, Washington politicians, and borrowers who should have known better.
Didn’t you?
For years, the word from D.C. was that it would take billions to provide the same level of quality healthcare to Americans across the board. Just couldn’t be done. Too expensive, they said. It was seen as anathema and, apparently, still is by President Obama who is using Geithner as his proxy to convince Congress that payments to health care providers need to be reduced.
Let me pinch myself again: The Secretary of the Treasury and the President both say it’s OK to dole out billions – soon to be trillions – to heal the self-inflicted wounds of the financial system’s largest participants now feeding at the trough of the U.S. Treasury.
But, according to Geithner and Obama, it’s a transgression – a grave one indeed – to provide excellence in healthcare without cutting payments to the highly talented medical professionals and institutions that provide those services.
One more thing: Why is Congress permitting Geithner to testify alone, without a countervailing, expert voice from the medical profession?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Smart Guy Jumps off Plane
The deepening financial crisis in America reminds me of how so many smart people who thought they had everything under control guided so many other people and institutions off the edge of a cliff, just like lemmings. This came vividly to mind as I read the following excerpt from a new book by John Ortberg.
“Smart people mess up as easily as the rest of us. Three men are in a plane: a pilot, a Boy Scout, and the world’s smartest man. The engine fails, the plane is going down, and there are only two parachutes. The smart man grabs one. ‘I’m sorry about this,’ he says, ‘but I’m the smartest man in the world. I have a responsibility to the planet,’ and he jumps out of the plane.”
“The pilot turns to the Boy Scout and speaks of how he has lived a long, full life and how the Boy Scout has his whole life in front of him. He tells the Boy Scout to take the last parachute and live. ‘Relax, Captain,’ the Boy Scout says. ‘The world’s smartest man just jumped out of the plane with my backpack.’”
There is a message in this about all those smart guys who were pumping up the financial bubble to the point of bursting: Some of them are now in Washington advising the President and Congress.
‘Nuff said.
“Smart people mess up as easily as the rest of us. Three men are in a plane: a pilot, a Boy Scout, and the world’s smartest man. The engine fails, the plane is going down, and there are only two parachutes. The smart man grabs one. ‘I’m sorry about this,’ he says, ‘but I’m the smartest man in the world. I have a responsibility to the planet,’ and he jumps out of the plane.”
“The pilot turns to the Boy Scout and speaks of how he has lived a long, full life and how the Boy Scout has his whole life in front of him. He tells the Boy Scout to take the last parachute and live. ‘Relax, Captain,’ the Boy Scout says. ‘The world’s smartest man just jumped out of the plane with my backpack.’”
There is a message in this about all those smart guys who were pumping up the financial bubble to the point of bursting: Some of them are now in Washington advising the President and Congress.
‘Nuff said.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Cards Keep Falling
I feel empathy for President Barack Obama tonight: Too many of his nominees for high-level administration posts have failed to pass muster.
The most recent of his hand-picked designees, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, withdrew his name this afternoon. He was expected to be named to the post of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS). Daschle, a close friend of Obama, was to rewrite health care policy in the U.S. but ran into income tax issues. (His wife, Linda Hall Daschle, is a registered Washington Lobbyist.)
Preceding Daschle, but only by hours, was the decision by Nancy Killefer to also withdraw her name for approval as the Administration’s Chief Performance Officer. This is a newly-created job with the rank of Deputy Director within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Killefer was expected to scrutinize and establish controls over government spending.
Both Daschle and Killefer withdrew their names because questions came up about personal tax obligations. On January 26, however, similar tax problems did not stop the Senate from approving the appointment of Timothy Geithner, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to the job of Treasury Secretary in the Obama Administration.
It seems that just a few days have drastically changed the landscape for Senate approval of Obama nominees to top administration posts. If Geithner were to come up for approval now, it’s unlikely that he would make the cut.
Earlier,in the first week of January, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a strong Obama supporter, also withdrew his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary due to a pending investigation originating in New Mexico. The administration announced today that it now hopes to fill that vacancy with U. S. Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire.
New Jersey is not the only place where ethical problems seem to abound.
The most recent of his hand-picked designees, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, withdrew his name this afternoon. He was expected to be named to the post of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS). Daschle, a close friend of Obama, was to rewrite health care policy in the U.S. but ran into income tax issues. (His wife, Linda Hall Daschle, is a registered Washington Lobbyist.)
Preceding Daschle, but only by hours, was the decision by Nancy Killefer to also withdraw her name for approval as the Administration’s Chief Performance Officer. This is a newly-created job with the rank of Deputy Director within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Killefer was expected to scrutinize and establish controls over government spending.
Both Daschle and Killefer withdrew their names because questions came up about personal tax obligations. On January 26, however, similar tax problems did not stop the Senate from approving the appointment of Timothy Geithner, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to the job of Treasury Secretary in the Obama Administration.
It seems that just a few days have drastically changed the landscape for Senate approval of Obama nominees to top administration posts. If Geithner were to come up for approval now, it’s unlikely that he would make the cut.
Earlier,in the first week of January, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a strong Obama supporter, also withdrew his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary due to a pending investigation originating in New Mexico. The administration announced today that it now hopes to fill that vacancy with U. S. Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire.
New Jersey is not the only place where ethical problems seem to abound.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Inaugural, Sports, and Bridgewater-Raritan Schools
At last Tuesday’s session of the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board in Martinsville, there were two events associated with the recent national elections. The first was a special slide presentation by Joe Walsh, Principal of the John F. Kennedy School in Raritan Borough.
During that presentation before a full house, Mr. Walsh proudly scrolled through slides that depicted the result of all the hard work that he, his staff and students had accomplished in setting up and executing a mock convention in which JFK students were the participants. One student represented Barack Obama and another, John McCain. Obama carried the day by a margin of 121 to 82.
Great job! The kids were motivated and the project was a success.
The second event was somewhat different. Most parents had showed up Tuesday evening in support of school athletic programs. Parent after parent stood before the mike urging the Board and Administration not to cut any of those programs from the 2009/2010 budget. Just about every person who got up to speak that night received comments, clarification, and support or became engaged in Q&A with individual members of the Board or Administration.
One parent, Judith Lee, an African-American, and a 14-year resident of Bridgewater with a daughter in middle school and another at the high school also came to the mike. She addressed the Board and Administration, stating that she supported a full and complete education, including sports. However, she went on to explain that her daughters had missed an opportunity to hear and see the full swearing-in ceremony for President Barack Obama, an historic first.
Her expectation was that the ceremonies would have been made fully available on school facilities to Bridgewater-Raritan students on inauguration day.
Lee calmly and deliberately went on to explain, “I was very upset that my daughters had not seen the inauguration.” Had she known that this might have been the case, the mother continued, “I would have kept my daughters home that day.” Finished with her comments, Lee returned to her chair, followed by silence from every one of the officials sitting at the conference room table. No follow-up questions. No clarifications. No comments. Nothing.
During that presentation before a full house, Mr. Walsh proudly scrolled through slides that depicted the result of all the hard work that he, his staff and students had accomplished in setting up and executing a mock convention in which JFK students were the participants. One student represented Barack Obama and another, John McCain. Obama carried the day by a margin of 121 to 82.
Great job! The kids were motivated and the project was a success.
The second event was somewhat different. Most parents had showed up Tuesday evening in support of school athletic programs. Parent after parent stood before the mike urging the Board and Administration not to cut any of those programs from the 2009/2010 budget. Just about every person who got up to speak that night received comments, clarification, and support or became engaged in Q&A with individual members of the Board or Administration.
One parent, Judith Lee, an African-American, and a 14-year resident of Bridgewater with a daughter in middle school and another at the high school also came to the mike. She addressed the Board and Administration, stating that she supported a full and complete education, including sports. However, she went on to explain that her daughters had missed an opportunity to hear and see the full swearing-in ceremony for President Barack Obama, an historic first.
Her expectation was that the ceremonies would have been made fully available on school facilities to Bridgewater-Raritan students on inauguration day.
Lee calmly and deliberately went on to explain, “I was very upset that my daughters had not seen the inauguration.” Had she known that this might have been the case, the mother continued, “I would have kept my daughters home that day.” Finished with her comments, Lee returned to her chair, followed by silence from every one of the officials sitting at the conference room table. No follow-up questions. No clarifications. No comments. Nothing.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama’s Executive Order on Abortion
Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama signed an executive order which, in combination with other family planning measures, will provide U.S. greenbacks for abortions performed on citizens of other nations as a means of birth control.
One of the controversies surrounding this action was that, as reported in the Washington Post on Saturday, “The . . . order was signed late in the day yesterday without any reporters, news photographers or television cameras present, in marked contrast to elaborate ceremonies highlighting orders Obama signed earlier in the week.”
While campaigning for the Oval Office, Obama made it clear that “We will make government open and transparent.” Apparently, this guideline does not apply when it comes to a potentially incendiary topic such as abortion. Obama’s signing of the executive order is controversial, because it reverses a prior order signed by former President W. George Bush in 2001 which eliminated that practice.
The original prohibition against U.S abortion funding in foreign lands had been initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It became known as the Mexico City Policy, the location where he signed it into law. When Bill Clinton came to the White House, he saw the matter differently and, in 1993, reversed Reagan’s action by issuing his own executive order.
And so it went. Each of these presidents has, according to his own political and presumably moral compass, countermanded the other on this divisive practice which provides U.S. funds to other nations for abortion counseling and for recommending the practice to their own citizens as a means of birth control. Obama is merely the last president to append his personal signature to the controversy.
Our new president should have had the courtesy and fortitude to have signed his order and to comment on its justification in the “open and transparent” light of the public square. That is what he promised and that is what he did for the other executive orders which he executed in his first week of office. But not for this one. Journalists should have been inside the room, and the cameras should have been rolling to record the event.
One of the controversies surrounding this action was that, as reported in the Washington Post on Saturday, “The . . . order was signed late in the day yesterday without any reporters, news photographers or television cameras present, in marked contrast to elaborate ceremonies highlighting orders Obama signed earlier in the week.”
While campaigning for the Oval Office, Obama made it clear that “We will make government open and transparent.” Apparently, this guideline does not apply when it comes to a potentially incendiary topic such as abortion. Obama’s signing of the executive order is controversial, because it reverses a prior order signed by former President W. George Bush in 2001 which eliminated that practice.
The original prohibition against U.S abortion funding in foreign lands had been initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It became known as the Mexico City Policy, the location where he signed it into law. When Bill Clinton came to the White House, he saw the matter differently and, in 1993, reversed Reagan’s action by issuing his own executive order.
And so it went. Each of these presidents has, according to his own political and presumably moral compass, countermanded the other on this divisive practice which provides U.S. funds to other nations for abortion counseling and for recommending the practice to their own citizens as a means of birth control. Obama is merely the last president to append his personal signature to the controversy.
Our new president should have had the courtesy and fortitude to have signed his order and to comment on its justification in the “open and transparent” light of the public square. That is what he promised and that is what he did for the other executive orders which he executed in his first week of office. But not for this one. Journalists should have been inside the room, and the cameras should have been rolling to record the event.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Art of the Oblique Political Statement
In a recent AP article by David Espo, President-elect Barack Obama skillfully deflected questions on several topics. When asked whether he had quit smoking, he responded that, “I have done a terrific job . . . of making myself healthier . . . I think you will not see any violations of those rules in the White House.” We’ll never be in the White House, so we won’t know. Nor did he address the status of his smoking habit while in other places. A simple yes or no would have been sufficient.
2. Asked about how quickly he would act to bring our troops home from Iraq, Obama said that he expected military commanders to devise a plan “for a responsible drawdown.” Presumably, we can ignore his prior, well-known Iraq election promises. What Obama will be implementing is none other than the Status of Forces agreement just negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
3. On foreign policy, Obama provided no direct response when asked whether India has a right to pursue targets in Pakistan, where water-borne terrorist attacks on the Indian port city of Mumbai originated. Recall that in one of his pre-election claims, Obama threatened to pursue bin Laden in Pakistan. He never hesitated then to question our own right to act militarily in that country.
The difference between campaigning and governing is very stark. But some of Obama’s responses to pre-election topics now seem to be cloudy.
2. Asked about how quickly he would act to bring our troops home from Iraq, Obama said that he expected military commanders to devise a plan “for a responsible drawdown.” Presumably, we can ignore his prior, well-known Iraq election promises. What Obama will be implementing is none other than the Status of Forces agreement just negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
3. On foreign policy, Obama provided no direct response when asked whether India has a right to pursue targets in Pakistan, where water-borne terrorist attacks on the Indian port city of Mumbai originated. Recall that in one of his pre-election claims, Obama threatened to pursue bin Laden in Pakistan. He never hesitated then to question our own right to act militarily in that country.
The difference between campaigning and governing is very stark. But some of Obama’s responses to pre-election topics now seem to be cloudy.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Time’s A’Wastin’
Sorry to interrupt, but the honeymoon is over. Like many married couples who never had the privilege of nestling in for a brief period of nuptial bliss before assuming the demanding obligations of life, so it is for President-Elect Barack Obama.
America can’t wait until after the inauguration on January 20, 2009, for a confirmation or re-direction of the economic engines of the country. With the October 3rd enactment into law of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) by President Bush and the 110th Congress, the groundwork has already been laid for our new chief executive. But it’s a ship that needs a new rudder, and that is President Obama. (I truncated the word “elect” from his title, because time will not permit two months of transitional idling.)
Markets don’t wait for people to move. They have a thrust of their own and, in the absence of consensus on a clearly-stated working plan by Obama – negotiated with Congress and the current administration – financial markets will define the future by what they see and hear today.
President Obama now has the force and prestige of his campaign momentum to reinforce him. He needs to negotiate the introduction of a modified plan, or to endorse the current one with President Bush and Congressional leaders Reid and Pelosi within the next two weeks. It’s time for some late-night cramming and candle-burning.
Should Obama fail to roll up his sleeves now, and should the economy sink further into recession, no longer will there be any basis for Bush-bashing. It’s your dime, Mr. President. Spend it wisely. I know you didn’t ask for this, but neither did we.
America can’t wait until after the inauguration on January 20, 2009, for a confirmation or re-direction of the economic engines of the country. With the October 3rd enactment into law of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) by President Bush and the 110th Congress, the groundwork has already been laid for our new chief executive. But it’s a ship that needs a new rudder, and that is President Obama. (I truncated the word “elect” from his title, because time will not permit two months of transitional idling.)
Markets don’t wait for people to move. They have a thrust of their own and, in the absence of consensus on a clearly-stated working plan by Obama – negotiated with Congress and the current administration – financial markets will define the future by what they see and hear today.
President Obama now has the force and prestige of his campaign momentum to reinforce him. He needs to negotiate the introduction of a modified plan, or to endorse the current one with President Bush and Congressional leaders Reid and Pelosi within the next two weeks. It’s time for some late-night cramming and candle-burning.
Should Obama fail to roll up his sleeves now, and should the economy sink further into recession, no longer will there be any basis for Bush-bashing. It’s your dime, Mr. President. Spend it wisely. I know you didn’t ask for this, but neither did we.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Loins, Politics, & Religion
When Joe Biden addressed a group of supporters at a fundraiser on Sunday night, his comments were notable for at least three reasons. One, Biden rattled his handlers with, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . . we’re going to have . . . an international . . . generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy . . . I promise you it will occur.”
Two, Biden made these comments and others like it before he realized that print journalists were in the room, after which he promptly concluded his address, stating, “I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.”
Three, in his remarks that evening, Biden used Biblical language in explaining that the “generated crisis” would engender a response by Barack Obama that would be hugely unpopular and would cause his standing to plummet in the polls. Americans would, according to Biden, have to “gird their loins.”
I’m not exactly thrilled with the idea that Obama, the man who is supposed to get us out of Iraq, is according to Biden, going to turn into a hawk in the first six months of 2009 in order to prove his mettle. Besides, Biden didn’t get the term right.
Although I have read several internet interpretations of the Biblical expression that “girding their loins” means simply securing one’s belt a little tighter, that’s not what it indicates.
The expression appears in several places and forms in Scripture. Its original intent in some of the earliest writings of the Bible, as in 1 Kings, refers to getting ready for battle. In this context, it signifies that a fighter “draws up and ties his lower garments between his legs as to increase mobility and agility.” Although the practice varied as the centuries progressed, there is nothing peaceful about it.
Later in time, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks about “taking on the whole armor of God . . . and, having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist." Paul continues, “Take the shield of faith.” These are intended as words of internal fortitude and of peaceful resistance, not of warfare. To which of the two meanings was Joe Biden referring?
Two, Biden made these comments and others like it before he realized that print journalists were in the room, after which he promptly concluded his address, stating, “I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.”
Three, in his remarks that evening, Biden used Biblical language in explaining that the “generated crisis” would engender a response by Barack Obama that would be hugely unpopular and would cause his standing to plummet in the polls. Americans would, according to Biden, have to “gird their loins.”
I’m not exactly thrilled with the idea that Obama, the man who is supposed to get us out of Iraq, is according to Biden, going to turn into a hawk in the first six months of 2009 in order to prove his mettle. Besides, Biden didn’t get the term right.
Although I have read several internet interpretations of the Biblical expression that “girding their loins” means simply securing one’s belt a little tighter, that’s not what it indicates.
The expression appears in several places and forms in Scripture. Its original intent in some of the earliest writings of the Bible, as in 1 Kings, refers to getting ready for battle. In this context, it signifies that a fighter “draws up and ties his lower garments between his legs as to increase mobility and agility.” Although the practice varied as the centuries progressed, there is nothing peaceful about it.
Later in time, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks about “taking on the whole armor of God . . . and, having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist." Paul continues, “Take the shield of faith.” These are intended as words of internal fortitude and of peaceful resistance, not of warfare. To which of the two meanings was Joe Biden referring?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
In the movie classic, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” there is a moment when the terminally ill family patriarch, played by Burl Ives, unexpectedly walks into the drawing room of his southern mansion and finds his two grown children and their mates quarreling among themselves about how they will split things up upon his death.
There is a moment of hanging quiet as they realize that he has heard them talking about him. Not having picked up the entire conversation, but knowing that he is on the carpet, Ives, in his heavy authoritarian voice, declares, “I smell mendacity in this room.”
After listening for months on end to the race for the White House as it has narrowed down to the remaining candidates, Obama and McCain, I also declare that, “I smell mendacity in this room.” Although one might think that McCain and Obama are as far apart as their ages, there is, in one respect, not even spitting distance between the two.
They each have or have had on their teams, key advisors who played a direct role in the developing financial debacle. As to Obama, mortgage executive Franklin Delano Raines is said to have “taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing matters," according to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/. Raines was chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae and walked off after earning $99 million in three years.
For McCain, it’s economic advisor Phil Gramm, the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. He led the fight to successfully poison financial markets by dismantling laws which separated banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Gramm got his reward by subsequently landing a job as vice-chairman for Swiss-based UBS investment bank.
The choice of these men and others like them for campaign advice underscores that both McCain and Obama have put personal relationships ahead of good judgment. There is no evidence that it will be any different when one of them is in the White House.
There is a moment of hanging quiet as they realize that he has heard them talking about him. Not having picked up the entire conversation, but knowing that he is on the carpet, Ives, in his heavy authoritarian voice, declares, “I smell mendacity in this room.”
After listening for months on end to the race for the White House as it has narrowed down to the remaining candidates, Obama and McCain, I also declare that, “I smell mendacity in this room.” Although one might think that McCain and Obama are as far apart as their ages, there is, in one respect, not even spitting distance between the two.
They each have or have had on their teams, key advisors who played a direct role in the developing financial debacle. As to Obama, mortgage executive Franklin Delano Raines is said to have “taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing matters," according to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/. Raines was chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae and walked off after earning $99 million in three years.
For McCain, it’s economic advisor Phil Gramm, the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. He led the fight to successfully poison financial markets by dismantling laws which separated banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Gramm got his reward by subsequently landing a job as vice-chairman for Swiss-based UBS investment bank.
The choice of these men and others like them for campaign advice underscores that both McCain and Obama have put personal relationships ahead of good judgment. There is no evidence that it will be any different when one of them is in the White House.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Blaah . . . Blaah . . . Blaah!
This is one of those times when I am happy to be an independent voter. Today, McCain and Obama responded to questions about what they would do to solve the financial tsunami once more threatening to spread from Wall Street into the cities and towns of mainstream USA. Their answers show how, in the midst of a major fiscal crisis, we are not being well-served by the rhetoric of either candidacy
First, McCain: He proposes to set up an independent, bi-partisan committee to address problems of the type caused by Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG. Nice try, but just ask the senior Tom Kean who headed up the 9/11 committee and who, to this day, maintains that the committee’s recommendations were never fully enacted. We don’t have the time for that.
Next, Obama: When asked what he would do about the imminent bankruptcy of the world’s largest insurer, AIG, the response from his staff is that his campaign will take no position, because he doesn’t know the status of AIG’s books. How nice: A Harvard education, mind you; and, while the rest of the world knows that investments made by AIG in mortgage-backed securities, as well as credit default swaps (insurance issued on those securities) would take down profitable units of this financial giant and spread to other firms, Obama doesn’t know seem to know this. How credible is that?
Somebody had to act, and now! Somebody just did: As of this writing, the U.S. government, according to a 9:15 p.m., web news release, “has agreed to provide an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue the huge insurer AIG, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday.”
We don’t have to agree with this particular course of action, but at least some people in Washington and on Wall Street have come together to assess the problem and have taken swift action.
Note: For a colorful reaction to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, see Jay Jefferson Cooke’s essay at, http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809160323
Disclosure: I have a son who works for a fiscally sound subsidiary of AIG.
First, McCain: He proposes to set up an independent, bi-partisan committee to address problems of the type caused by Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG. Nice try, but just ask the senior Tom Kean who headed up the 9/11 committee and who, to this day, maintains that the committee’s recommendations were never fully enacted. We don’t have the time for that.
Next, Obama: When asked what he would do about the imminent bankruptcy of the world’s largest insurer, AIG, the response from his staff is that his campaign will take no position, because he doesn’t know the status of AIG’s books. How nice: A Harvard education, mind you; and, while the rest of the world knows that investments made by AIG in mortgage-backed securities, as well as credit default swaps (insurance issued on those securities) would take down profitable units of this financial giant and spread to other firms, Obama doesn’t know seem to know this. How credible is that?
Somebody had to act, and now! Somebody just did: As of this writing, the U.S. government, according to a 9:15 p.m., web news release, “has agreed to provide an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue the huge insurer AIG, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday.”
We don’t have to agree with this particular course of action, but at least some people in Washington and on Wall Street have come together to assess the problem and have taken swift action.
Note: For a colorful reaction to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, see Jay Jefferson Cooke’s essay at, http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809160323
Disclosure: I have a son who works for a fiscally sound subsidiary of AIG.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Political Chicanery
If there’s one thing that gets my dander up, it’s some dolt tapping the keys of a PC, writing some missive about which he knows nothing, not having done any fact-checking. When the result is the savaging of the integrity of a genuine U.S. war hero, it gets my dander up even more.
A recent TV ad by the Obama campaign claims that McCain is out of touch with reality because he can’t send an e-mail and doesn’t know how to use a PC. I’d like to know: Since when did the ability to use these tools automatically impart intelligence, discernment and wisdom to a person? That’s the first argument.
The second is that the impulsive staffers who work for David Plouffe, Obama’s chief strategist, got the basis for their claim disgustingly wrong. Here’s an excerpt from a Boston Globe profile of McCain which appeared on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan -- Ted Williams is his hero -- but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
Enough said. Thanks for reading, and take care of yourselves out there; it can be a vicious world at times.
Note: Regardless of your political persuasion, it never hurts to be informed. If you’d like to read the source for this post and see the Obama campaign video, you can view them at, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/obama-ad-email.html. Also, it you have the inclination to read the Boston Globe’s profile on McCain published in March, 2000, it can be found at, http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml . The story begins with McCain’s response to a political thrust against the gay major of Tempe Arizona.
A recent TV ad by the Obama campaign claims that McCain is out of touch with reality because he can’t send an e-mail and doesn’t know how to use a PC. I’d like to know: Since when did the ability to use these tools automatically impart intelligence, discernment and wisdom to a person? That’s the first argument.
The second is that the impulsive staffers who work for David Plouffe, Obama’s chief strategist, got the basis for their claim disgustingly wrong. Here’s an excerpt from a Boston Globe profile of McCain which appeared on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan -- Ted Williams is his hero -- but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
Enough said. Thanks for reading, and take care of yourselves out there; it can be a vicious world at times.
Note: Regardless of your political persuasion, it never hurts to be informed. If you’d like to read the source for this post and see the Obama campaign video, you can view them at, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/obama-ad-email.html. Also, it you have the inclination to read the Boston Globe’s profile on McCain published in March, 2000, it can be found at, http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml . The story begins with McCain’s response to a political thrust against the gay major of Tempe Arizona.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Bush and Obama’s Common Trait
What could George W. Bush and Barack Obama possibly share in common? The first seems to be as conservative as one can be (at least on paper!), while the other seems to be tilting as far to the liberal side as he can be (at least on paper!).
But if you put on your memory thinking cap, you may remember that way back when Bush was running for his first term, he declared that the U.S. should not get involved with nation-building: It would not be his administration’s business to get involved in the internal matters of other countries, he would go on to claim. Years later, the events of 9/11 changed all that, and the U.S. Military is now deeply involved precisely in what Bush once said he wouldn’t do: nation-building.
That brings me to Barack Obama. During his entire presidential run, when he was not yet the presumptive Democratic nominee for President and, at a time when he was heavily engaged in a campaign struggle with Senator Hillary Clinton, he emphatically and proudly underscored his premier campaign clarion call: He did not vote for the Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, he emphasized over and over and, should he be elected President, he vowed to bring all the troops home within 16 months.
Now we hear Obama claiming that, after his trip to Iraq where he will meet with General Petraeus and other U.S. Military commanders, he will, if necessary, “refine” his strategy. Well, you should have heard all of the brouhaha generated in the media and political circles about that remark! It caused Senator Obama to quickly re-appear before the mikes and cameras in an apparent effort to recant.
However, should Obama win the general election in November, there will be a transition team put in place to advise the President-elect of all classified information concerning national security. That’s when the President-to-be discovers the dirt about what’s really going on.
This isn’t what surprises me, though. What does is that Obama has declared himself so soon about a potential policy reversal regarding troop withdrawal. The man has a large, well-paid cadre of advisors on his team. Yet, for reasons known only to him, Obama decided to test the acceptance of a potential future change in his troop withdrawal strategy with the use of the word, “refine.” In Washington, in a statement about Iraq, that’s a fighting word!
A long time ago, Bush decided to go into the nation-building business, something he said he would never do. When the dust settles after November, Obama could very well find himself following the same policy of nation-building.
When Bush was first running for President he proudly considered himself a Washington outsider, as Obama now does – a trait which each man shares in common. But, the real question is not whether a presidential candidate is a Washington outsider: It is what that person does once he gets on the inside.
But if you put on your memory thinking cap, you may remember that way back when Bush was running for his first term, he declared that the U.S. should not get involved with nation-building: It would not be his administration’s business to get involved in the internal matters of other countries, he would go on to claim. Years later, the events of 9/11 changed all that, and the U.S. Military is now deeply involved precisely in what Bush once said he wouldn’t do: nation-building.
That brings me to Barack Obama. During his entire presidential run, when he was not yet the presumptive Democratic nominee for President and, at a time when he was heavily engaged in a campaign struggle with Senator Hillary Clinton, he emphatically and proudly underscored his premier campaign clarion call: He did not vote for the Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, he emphasized over and over and, should he be elected President, he vowed to bring all the troops home within 16 months.
Now we hear Obama claiming that, after his trip to Iraq where he will meet with General Petraeus and other U.S. Military commanders, he will, if necessary, “refine” his strategy. Well, you should have heard all of the brouhaha generated in the media and political circles about that remark! It caused Senator Obama to quickly re-appear before the mikes and cameras in an apparent effort to recant.
However, should Obama win the general election in November, there will be a transition team put in place to advise the President-elect of all classified information concerning national security. That’s when the President-to-be discovers the dirt about what’s really going on.
This isn’t what surprises me, though. What does is that Obama has declared himself so soon about a potential policy reversal regarding troop withdrawal. The man has a large, well-paid cadre of advisors on his team. Yet, for reasons known only to him, Obama decided to test the acceptance of a potential future change in his troop withdrawal strategy with the use of the word, “refine.” In Washington, in a statement about Iraq, that’s a fighting word!
A long time ago, Bush decided to go into the nation-building business, something he said he would never do. When the dust settles after November, Obama could very well find himself following the same policy of nation-building.
When Bush was first running for President he proudly considered himself a Washington outsider, as Obama now does – a trait which each man shares in common. But, the real question is not whether a presidential candidate is a Washington outsider: It is what that person does once he gets on the inside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)