Category Archives: Obama administration

You Say You Want a Revolution…

31 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bernie Sanders, Campaign Financing, Corporations, Democrats, Election 2016, financial regulation, health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama administration, Politics, Supreme Court, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

…well you know, we don’t need one.
Let me get his out of the way first. I could not possibly care less about who gets the Republican nomination for president. Doesn’t matter one iota to me, I ain’t voting for any of them. No way, no how. I do, however, care who gets the Democratic nomination. Very much. Much has been gained during the Obama administration, naysayers on the left notwithstanding, and much stands to be lost should Democrats nominate the wrong person. The wrong person is Bernie Sanders.

I suppose that by the time one is pushing 60 years of life on this thing we call Earth, one should find very little at which to be surprised. One would be wrong. I find myself surprised at the intelligent, pragmatic, and otherwise generally clear-thinking and practical people who have been and continue to be taken in by the so-called Bernie Sanders revolution.

This isn’t original (read it somewhere but can’t remember where, another consequence of those nearly 60 years) but I wholeheartedly agree with it. The 2016 election isn’t about changing the guard, it’s about guarding the change. We changed the guard in 2008. After 8 years of the utter disaster that was Bush/Cheney, the American people were ready for a new direction–a completely different direction–we got that with the historic election of Barack Obama. Now we need a president who can guard the change. Who can first and foremost protect what has been accomplished and, where possible, make some incremental improvements. That isn’t nearly as exciting and sexy as “revolution” but I’ll take it 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

I suppose the appeal of the revolution is that it sounds so good and so simple. Medicare For All, Break Up the Banks, Overturn Citizens United. Yeah buddy, let’s do it. But drill down a little bit and it isn’t quite that good or that simple. Yes, the cost of health care is still a problem, the power of Wall Street is as well, and the influence of money on political campaigns needs to be addressed. But all these are complex and intricate issues which have reached the point they are now over years and even decades. They won’t be fixed with simple slogans and 8 page plans that don’t take into account the ramifications that would ensue should they be enacted.

Medicare For All. Does anybody actually believe that the health care needs of a family of four can be covered for $460 a year and paid for by nothing but a measly 2% increase in income taxes? Doesn’t pass my smell test. The state of Vermont found that out with their attempt to implement single-payer. When pencil met paper the result was closer to a 20 percent tax hike and a doubling of state expenditures.

Abolish private health insurance? What about the millions of Americans who make their living working for them? The private insurers aren’t just the few fat cat CEOs who sit at the top receiving exorbitant compensation. There are millions of Americans who work for not only those companies directly but whose jobs are dependant on their existence. Claims, billing, etc. What happens to them if private health insurance goes away? Does the Sanders plan lay out what happens to them should the “revolution” hit health care, and what would be the effects on the economy as a whole should private health insurance be outlawed? Nope.

The way forward is not to scrap the ACA after only 5 years, but to build on it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, none of these were perfect originally, neither is the ACA. But it’s damn sure better than what we had before, and in its infancy and with all its shortcomings has helped millions of Americans. To scrap it for a hastily concocted and not well thought out alternative would be foolish.

Break Up The Big Banks. Okay, then what?

“For example, to break up the big banks sounds good and well but what happens to the customers of those banks that rely on them for their savings accounts? What about small businesses that rely on those banks for loans? What about homeowners who pay a mortgage through the bank? Are all these accounts then shifted toward community banks? If so, which ones? What if this new bank is far away from someone’s home or business?”

And again, what is the effect on the economy of the break up and the loss of jobs sure to follow? As with the private insurers, these institutions are a significant portion of our economy and encompass more than just the guys at the top who get all the headlines. Lots of jobs for people not named Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein depend on Chase, Bank of America, Citi, et al. What happens to those people?

No, we don’t need to take that risk. Dodd-Frank, despite all its imperfections, is doing its job. Could it be stronger? Absolutely. But gradually and incrementally, as boring as that is, is the only way to proceed, both practically and politically.

Overturn Citizens United. This is a recording, it ain’t that simple. The Supreme Court can’t just take it upon themselves to overturn a standing decision. A case must be brought, in almost every situation, after having gone through years in lower courts. This whole “money is speech” and “corporations are people” mess got started with the Buckley v Valeo decision. In 1976. The rotten fruit of that decision became Citizens United. In 2010. For those keeping score, that’s 34 years. Changing the system will take time and a Supreme Court amenable to hearing and reviewing cases brought before it. We don’t have that now, revolution notwithstanding.

Just to be really blunt, Sanders can’t win in November. I know his supporters like to claim that he polls better against Republican candidates than does Hillary Clinton. Two things about that. One, January polls are about as predictive of November election results as Tarot cards and tea leaves. Two, should Sanders be nominated, and once Republicans settle on a nominee and turn all their blazing guns on Sanders, he will be destroyed by months of negative and yet more negative ads. He will go down and take a lot of people and a lot of progress with him in the process.

We can’t afford to let that happen. Change is hard, change takes time, and nobody waves a magic wand. The way forward is to build on the solid foundation laid by what will be the 8 years of President Obama. Given the two choice facing Democratic primary voters (sorry Martin, but it’s true) Hillary Clinton is the right person for that job.

The War in Libya Drags On….Illegally

26 Sunday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Libya, Obama, Obama administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As, “days, not weeks” in Libya enters its fourth month, and now that the top U.S. admiral in Libya has admitted that the goal is regime change, despite this…

“Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

…and this:

“Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.”

Glen Greenwald asks this question:

“Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war?  Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?  Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”

Greenwald also has an explanation for the failure of Friday’s de-funding bill in the House. One that I hadn’t considered, but which makes sense:

“The so-called “de-funding” bill the House rejected yesterday was not really a de-funding bill.  It would have barred the spending of money for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others.  That’s why… dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted NO on the de-funding bill: not because…they were cowards who did not have the courage of their anti-war convictions; and not because the bill would have approved some spending for a war they oppose (though that is true), but rather because they were worried (appropriately so) that had that “de-funding” bill passed, Obama lawyers would have exploited it to argue that Congress, by appropriating some money for the war, had implicitly authorized Obama to wage it.

As Ron Paul — echoing the spokesperson for House progressives — said in explaining his NO vote on “de-funding”, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war…instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That was the reason so many anti-war members of Congress — including dozens of progressives — rejected the “de-funding” bill despite opposition to the war in Libya: because it was a disguised authorization for a war they oppose, not because they cowardly failed to check executive power abuses.”

And as Greenwald also points out, regardless of the outcome of the de-funding vote, the war in Libya is still illegal:

“Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal.  Under the law (and the Constitution), military actions are illegal if Congress does not affirmatively authorize them (either within 60 days or at the start, depending on one’s view).  The fact that the President has failed to obtain that authorization renders his ongoing war-waging illegal — period.  

[…]

Of course it’s true that Congress should act to stop a President who is waging a war in violation of the law and/or the Constitution, but Presidents shouldn’t wage illegal wars in the first place.  It is frequently asserted that Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the power and obligation to defend the nation, even though nothing in Article II (or any other provision of the Constitution) actually does that.  But there is an obligation which Article II does explicitly impose on the President: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  That includes, by definition, the War Powers Resolution (and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).”

It All Depends on What “Hostilities” Means

16 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:

“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”

Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”

I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”

Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?

“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.

Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.

Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.

White House Moving to Wall Street

04 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by in economy, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking news: In order to cut down on travel time through the revolving door for President Obama’s outgoing and incoming team of  advisers, the White House is moving from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Here’s the new location:


Might as well be:

“President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

[…]

After serving as president of SBC Communications for more than two years, he joined New York-based JPMorgan, the second- biggest U.S. bank by assets, in 2004, serving as Midwest chairman and the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.”

Corporate responsibility. Like a 25% increase in outsourcing to India in 2009. Like using the $25 billion in bailout money that was intended to loosen up lending to become “more active on the acquisition side.” That kind of “corporate responsibility?”

Oxy (clap clap clap) moron (clap clap clap). Oxy (clap clap clap) moron (clap clap clap).

Why Daley?

“The administration is seeking to repair relations with the business community after coming under fire from industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The nation’s biggest business lobbying group opposed Obama’s health-care and financial-regulatory overhauls and committed $75 million to political ads in the midterm congressional elections, mainly directed against Democrats.

…Obama is generating more optimism among corporate executives after a series of actions and overtures, including a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, efforts to boost exports such as a U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement, and a loosening of controls on some technology sales.”

Well isn’t that just wonderful. Makes me feel all warm inside.

Then there’s the search for someone to replace Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council (NEC):

“…it seems that the shortlist to replace Larry Summers at the NEC has been whittled down to three men — Gene Sperling, Roger Altman, and Richard Levin…The…notable characteristic of the three is that they’re all multi-millionaires with close ties to Wall Street. None more than Altman, of course, who has his own bank. But Levin is on the board of American Express, which paid him $181,362 in 2009, and where he has shares and “share equivalent units” worth $539,000.”

That leaves Gene Sperling, currently one of Geithner’s underlings, and the person who is reportedly the leading candidate for the job:

“Goldman Sachs paid Sperling $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs [in 2008].”

Ezra Klein:

“It is very hard to believe that Goldman Sachs wasn’t attempting to buy influence with a politically savvy economist who had good relations — and would later go to work for — the incoming Democratic administration.”

More on Sperling:

“…he has played key roles crafting the administration’s economic policies, most recently in forging Obama’s compromise with Republican leaders to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts.”

Just peachy.

Obama Administration Pot Calls Out Pakistani Kettle

31 Friday Dec 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Bill of Rights, drone strikes, Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Pakistan, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From the Department of Blatant Hypocrisy, Do As I Say, Not As I Do Division:

“The Obama administration is expressing alarm over reports that thousands of political separatists and captured Taliban insurgents have disappeared into the hands of Pakistan’s police and security forces, and that some may have been tortured or killed.

The concern is over a steady stream of accounts from human rights groups that Pakistan’s security services have rounded up thousands of people over the past decade, mainly in Baluchistan, a vast and restive province far from the fight with the Taliban, and are holding them incommunicado without charges.”

Welcome to the Hotel Gitmo. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

“Separately, the report also described concerns that the Pakistani military had killed unarmed members of the Taliban, rather than put them on trial.

…Two months ago, the United States took the unusual step of refusing to train or equip about a half-dozen Pakistani Army units that are believed to have killed unarmed prisoners and civilians during recent offensives against the Taliban. The most recent State Department report contains some of the administration’s most pointed language about accusations of such so-called extrajudicial killings.”

Kind of like this?

“From the moment he stepped foot inside the White House, Obama set about expanding and escalating a covert CIA program of “targeted killings” inside Pakistan, using Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles..that had been started by the Bush administration in 2004.

On 23 January 2009, just three days after being sworn in, Obama ordered his first set of air strikes inside Pakistan; one is said to have killed four Arab fighters linked to al-Qaida but the other hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child.

…During his first nine months in office he authorised as many aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W Bush did in his final three years in the job…According to the New America Foundation thinktank in Washington DC, the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan more than doubled in 2010, to 115. That is an astonishing rate of around one bombing every three days inside a country with which the US is not at war.”

And then there’s this from the Obstruction of Justice Department, Look Forward Division:

“The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected a request from prosecutors in Warsaw for assistance in the investigation into the alleged CIA prisons in Poland, where captives claim they were tortured. On 18 March, the Prosecutor’s Office of Appeal in Warsaw filed a motion for legal assistance from the US Department of Justice into the probe…[T]he US informed prosecutors that the motion had been rejected on the basis of the international Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the U.S. authorities consider the matter “to be closed”.

So far, the U.S. Justice Department has failed to comply with its treaty obligations to supply information requested by prosecutors in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Poland who are probing allegations of kidnapping, false arrest, assault, and torture by persons believed to be CIA agents in connection with extraordinary rendition operations.”

This has, by far, been my biggest disappointment with the current administration. Legislative policies are one thing-legislation can be amended, superseded, or repealed. But by continuing, and in some cases expanding upon, the Bush administration “war on terror” tactics, and pursuing this “look forward, not back” lunacy, it has now become the accepted and established policy of two successive administrations—one Republican and one Democratic–that the United States of America now condones actions (indefinite detention without charges, denial of due process) that were once upon a time (pre-9/11) considered a violation of our Bill of Rights.

It also lets other countries that enter into treaties with us know that we will abide by the conditions of those treaties only so far as it is convenient and politically expedient for us to do so, and denies us any credibility on the world stage when it comes to the condemnation of other country’s human rights violations.

In short, we prove to the world that America is a nation of preachers and not practicers.

Forecast for the Obama “Compromise”: “Weak Growth, Little Decline in Unemployment”

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dean Baker writes at The Guardian:

“The enthusiasm of the US business press for the compromise tax package worked out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress led to a mini-euphoria of upbeat economic projections for 2011. While the economy will do better with this tax package than if no deal were forthcoming, much of the discussion has exaggerated the potential stimulus to the economy.

First, it is important to remember that although the total package is scored as costing almost $900bn over two years, almost everything in this package simply leaves in place current tax rates and spending. The biggest portion of the tax cut continues the tax rates put in place by President Bush in 2001. The continuation of these tax cuts, including a lower estate tax rate, accounts for almost $400bn of the $900bn.

Adding in the cost of a technical fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is done every year, and the continuation of a series of smaller tax breaks, brings the total to $670bn. This portion of the package buys exactly zero stimulus, since it simply amounts to continuing tax policies already in place. Had these tax breaks not continued, it would have been a drag on growth, but their continuation does not provide any additional momentum to the economy. The $60bn cost of extending unemployment insurance for another year can also be put in this category.

The only net stimulus in this package comes from replacing the $60bn Making Work Pay tax credit in 2011 with a $110bn reduction in the payroll tax and the allowance full expensing of new investment. The latter is projected to cost $55bn a year for the next two years. The full expensing in this deal replaces a provision of the 2009 stimulus package that provided for 50% expensing, which means that the net boost to the economy is half this size.

In sum, the net stimulus for the economy from this package in 2011 will be in the range of $70bn, or about 0.5% of GDP. This is not likely to provide a substantial boost to growth.

While the tax deal will be a net positive to growth for 2011, there are many other factors that are pushing in the opposite direction. First, much of the spending in the original stimulus package will be coming to an end in the first two quarters of 2011. This includes both infrastructure spending for projects that will be nearing completion, and also assistance to state governments that allowed them to better weather difficult fiscal times.

State and local governments continue to face large budget shortfalls. They are finding it increasingly difficult to paper over their budgetary gaps (most state and local governments are required to run balanced budgets), and will have to resort to further cutbacks and tax increases in the year ahead.

House prices are once again falling, with the most recent data showing an 8.5% annual rate of decline. This pace is likely to accelerate in the months ahead. The housing market had been supported through the first half of 2010 by a first-time buyers’ tax credit. This had the effect of pulling many purchases forward from the second half of the year or 2011. As a result, sales have fallen by almost one third. As inventories build up again, many homeowners will be forced to make substantial price cuts to sell their houses.

Declining house prices will be another blow to consumption as homeowners recognise that they have lost even more wealth than their had previously believed. The current pace of decline implies a loss of more than $1tn in wealth over the course of a year. The actual loss of wealth could easily be twice as large if the rate of price decline accelerates.

Another factor depressing consumption is the recent bump in interest rates. While interest rates are still extremely low in both real and nominal terms, the current 10-year Treasury rate is close to a full percentage point above the lows hit in the late summer. This rise in interest rates will bring to an end the wave of mortgage refinancing that had helped to free up tens of billions of dollars for consumption. Relatively few homeowners will see much gain in refinancing at current mortgage rates.

It is also important to recognise just how slow the underlying rate of growth in the economy actually is. Most analysts have highlighted the overall GDP growth figure. But this number has been inflated over the last year by a rapid build-up of inventories. Over the last four quarters, GDP growth averaged 3.2%. However, final demand growth averaged just 1.3% over this period. In the most recent quarter, inventories were accumulating at almost the fastest rate on record. It is unlikely that the rate of inventory accumulation will accelerate further. Rather, the rate is likely to slow – meaning that inventories will be a net drag on growth in coming quarters.

In sum, there is every reason to expect that 2011 will be another year of weak growth, with little, if any, decline in the unemployment rate. The economy will be somewhat stronger as a result of this tax package being put in place, compared to a scenario in which nothing was done, but this is very far from the fabled “second stimulus” that some are acclaiming.”

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

Medical Experimentation on Gitmo Detainees

02 Thursday Dec 2010

Posted by in Obama administration, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Paging Dr. Mengele, Dr. Josef Mengele.

Truthout has a report taken from Department of Defense documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo were given massive doses of an anti-malarial drug which was known to have serious psychological side effects before they had even been tested for malaria, and in spite of the non-existence of malaria in Cuba:

“The Defense Department forced all “war on terror” detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison to take a high dosage of a controversial anti-malarial drug, mefloquine, an act that an Army public health physician called “pharmacologic waterboarding.”

The US military administered the drug despite Pentagon knowledge that mefloquine caused severe neuropsychiatric side effects, including suicidal thoughts, hallucinations and anxiety. The drug was used on the prisoners whether they had malaria or not.

All detainees arriving at Guantanamo in January 2002 were first given a treatment dosage of 1,250 mg of mefloquine, before laboratory tests were conducted to determine if they actually had the disease…The 1,250 mg dosage is what would be given if the detainees actually had malaria. That dosage is five times higher than the prophylactic dose given to individuals to prevent the disease.

The drug was administered to Guantanamo detainees without regard for their medical or psychological history, despite its considerable risk of exacerbating pre-existing conditions. Mefloquine is also known to have serious side effects among individuals under treatment for depression or other serious mental health disorders…In 2002, when the prison was established and mefloquine first administered, there were dozens of suicide attempts at Guantanamo. That same year, the DoD stopped reporting attempted suicides.”

But never mind all that, let’s look forward, not back. Speaking of looking forward:

“The Obama administration went to the mat to defend its predecessors from a torture prosecution in Spain last year, a leaked State Department cable shows.

The cable, released by WikiLeaks this week, shows that senior US diplomats teamed with Republican lawmakers — including a former Republican Party chairman — to put pressure on Spanish officials to drop a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Ain’t bi-partisanship great.

What Communication Problem?

29 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I keep reading about the Obama administration’s so-called “communication problem.” The latest being this piece in the LA Times by Richard Wolffe:

“[The] lack of agreement on economic fundamentals is a primary factor behind one of this White House’s most obvious failures: communications. As one senior Obama advisor told me the day after the disastrous midterms: “It was hard to find a single economic message when the economic team couldn’t agree on a single economic policy.”

I don’t get it. To me, the “economic message” has been crystal clear since the president began to name his team of advisors. The message has been and continues to be, save Wall Street by any means necessary. And to that I give a hearty “Mission Accomplished”:

Charles Ferguson, whose documentary about the financial crisis–Inside Job– is a must see, wrote in Salon:

“When Barack Obama was elected, he had an unprecedented opportunity to shape American history by bringing the country’s new financial oligarchy under control. Elected on a platform of change and renewal by a nation in crisis and with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his election celebrated throughout the world, Obama could have done great things. Instead, he gave us more of the same. America will be paying for his decision for a very long time.

And now, nearly two years later, the Obama administration has established a clear record…It is, in short, overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs — or at least not to challenge them.”

Paul Krugman:

“No wonder we’re in such trouble. Obama must gravitate instinctively to people who give him bad economic advice, and who almost surely don’t share the values he was elected to promote. That’s what I’d call a structural problem.”

I’ll take it one fairly obvious (to me anyway) step further, President Obama doesn’t share the values he was elected to promote. (On a related note; if anyone’s looking for a Christmas present for the person who has everything, I’ll make you a good deal on some slightly used snake oil I bought two years ago). He’s the one who put that team in place and who continues to defend them (heckuva job Larry) on their way out the door. I have a difficult time believing that the replacements will be any different. A structural problem indeed.

A Milestone in Colossal Stupidity

27 Saturday Nov 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama, Obama administration, Pentagon, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Proving Santayana right, today marks a milestone in the Afghanistan quagmire. A milestone in colossal stupidity:

“On Saturday Nov. 27, the United States and its allies will reach a grim milestone: they will have been in Afghanistan a day longer than the Soviet Union had been when it completed its 1989 withdrawal.”

And the end is not in sight:

“Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell last week made clear that the 2014 date for an end to combat operations agreed by NATO was an “aspirational” deadline. And an Afghanistan progress report by the Pentagon to the U.S. Congress released Tuesday made clear that despite the Obama Administration’s “surge” of some 30,000 extra American soldiers into the war zone, progress has been modest and the insurgency continues to expand.”

2014? What happened to July 2011?

“…it appears as if President Obama isn’t prepared to cut his losses in the war and order a sharp drawdown of troops next July, when, at least according to his stated policy, US forces will begin to leave Afghanistan. Worse, it looks like the much anticipated December 2010 presidential review of war policy is being reduced to a rubber-stamp approval of General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency scheme.

…Obama is increasingly in harmony with Petraeus. The president and the general are “meshing well, advisers say,” they reported, adding that the president strikes a “deferential tone” toward Petraeus even though Petraeus “has made clear that he opposes a rapid pullout of troops from Afghanistan beginning next July.”

A “deferential tone?” Who’s in charge here? That would be a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.

“When asked by a reporter about the US “exit strategy” for Afghanistan, the senior defense official took issue with the term. “We don’t have an exit strategy. We have a transition strategy. The US commitment to Afghanistan is continuing, enduring, and long-lasting.”

A “transition” that, according to the former number two U.N. diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, could take 100 years:

“We’re talking about something that will take 100 years, generations,” says Galbraith, “You can equip them. You can provide some training, but you can’t make them honest. You can’t make them literate. You can’t make them committed to the notions of policing that we have in the West,” he says.”

Once again, we’ve been here before. Apparently the lesson was unlearned. More on the Pentagon’s report to Congress, with the appropriate editing inserted:

“The Pentagon’s semiannual report to Congress on the war in Vietnam Afghanistan paints a picture of a country where corruption remains rampant, violence has increased, and a well-funded Vietcong Taliban insurgency continues to make troubling gains.

The report, “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Vietnam Afghanistan,” which was released this week, actually cites little in the way of progress in the war, a major US undertaking that is rapidly losing popular support among Americans and threatens to become a political burden on President Johnson Obama.”

The song remains the same, only the names have changed.