Dear President Obama,
Back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein tried to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait, I supported President George H. W. Bush's decision to expel from Kuwait, and subsequently contain, Hussein's forces within the no-fly zones. I supported President Bill Clinton in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act, and then bombed Hussein back into submission after Saddam got a little testy (and no, it wasn't 'wag the dog'). After September 11th, 2001, I was in full support of President George W. Bush sending our troops into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. I never believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the events on 9/11, and the WMD argument never really moved me. Yet, after witnessing a similar lawlessness in the Middle East reach across the oceans to send towers tumbling in New York, and after nearly 13 years of Hussein toying with U.N. inspections and the no-fly zone, as well as three American presidents, in 2003 I fully supported the war in Iraq. And to this day I still do.
So with that understanding of my perspective, realize that it isn't easy for me to say this, but Mr. President, send the troops home now. Send the troops in Afghanistan home. Send the troops in Iraq home. Please, send them home now; don't let another American soldier die if you can help it.
It's not that I don't think we could win. Our military, our soldiers, are the finest in the world. Their skill, experience and tactical ability are more than apt to complete the job. Moreover, when you entered office, success in these two wars was within our grasp. With all of the talk about the bad things you "inherited" when you were elected, you also inherited a war in Iraq that was ours to lose and a relatively straight forward, though perhaps more difficult endeavor in Afghanistan. This was low hanging fruit, a parting gift from George, and someone with your intellect and charisma could have completed the job. You would have been able to take the credit for bringing peace back to our country and theirs, and given the Democratic Party as a whole, some real national security bonafides to hang their hat on.
What's funny is that one of the few positions you held during your campaign that I couldn't argue with was your stance on the "good" war in Afghanistan. That and your statements about finally capturing Osama Bin Laden. Earlier this year when you came out with your Afghanistan strategy, it was one of the few moments in your presidency where I found myself in agreement with your policies. But like so much of your campaign happy talk, this wasn't a position held by conviction but rather political calculation shifting with the winds. And instead of taking the reigns and ensuring success in at least Afghanistan if not also Iraq, you pontificated and deliberated for ten months, letting success slip.
I'll be the first to say that Bush made many mistakes in his handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, among other things. But amidst all of the theories around why Bush went to war (oil, Haliburton, to avenge his father), and all of the questions around whether we had the right to pre-emptively invade another country, one thing no one could ever question was whether Bush believed in the mission, or whether he wanted to win. He wanted to win badly. Cheney wanted to win so much it scared people. Can the same be said for you?
I got my first taste of your convictions when right after getting elected, you pledged, without a plan and with no pressing need, to close the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay. With the economy in shambles and all of the other issues facing America at the time, this wasn't necessary. It was pure politics on your part. The first of many moves not based on what's best for the country, but always good for party. A continuation of your campaign whose main feature was repudiating Bush. But it quickly became evident why Bush put the terrorists there. Perhaps the ole Texas bumpkin had his reasons after all, and there were many; we didn't want them on our soil, no one else wanted them either, and some of these dangerous enemies of our country would inevitably go free if not kept at Gitmo. To this day, despite your continued insistence to close Gitmo, your plan is about as dead as Greg Craig's White House career.
Your administration's next shining moment was when Homeland Security, under the new leadership of Janet Napolitano, released a report raising concerns about home grown right wing terrorists. Not only did this move trivialize the real threats that our country actually faces, but it divided our nation in a way that perhaps you didn't understand. Despite what some commenters say, I'm a pretty moderate guy, yet I felt like you were talking about me. And changing the name of terrorist attacks to "man caused disasters" and the War on Terror to "Overseas Contingency Operations?" Well, that's just stupid and unserious from an administration that campaigned on being smart and nuanced.
That you'd even suggest investigating CIA operatives who helped keep us safe for 8 years after we were attacked is incomprehensible. But it was the way you came out and said there wouldn't be an investigation only for your Attorney General to turn around and say the opposite which is what really challenged my trust. I mean really? Let's put the bald faced dishonesty by proxy of your AG aside for a minute. Any thought about the future impacts of this? Do you even want to chance demoralizing your own intelligence agency in the midst of two wars, merely to settle a political score? You've also opened a door; in 8, or possibly 4 years it may be your administration that's the subject of a political kangaroo court. Why?
Your treatment of the very General you hired to win in Afghanistan is an outrage, and let's face it, You've dithered. You've dithered hard. If our wars could be won with dithering the troops would be home for their ticker tape parade and I'd be planning my next vacation in Babylon. But wars are won with heart, conviction, and good strategy. You have none of these, and although you've not made a decision on what to do in Afghanistan, you're lack of a decision has already let our enemy know the truth - that you are not committed to win. And if you aren't winning a war, you're losing it. Our enemies by contrast aren't looking for "off ramps." They know that you can't vote present on fighting war.
From the terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, to the amount of attention given to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it seems like identity and gender politics, and political correctness seem to be as important, if not more important than the actual function of the military, which is to keep this nation safe. And this latest idiotic gesture of the 9/11 hijackers, previously in a hole in Cuba, "finally [facing] justice" by trying them in New York City? Irrespective of the increased danger and inconvenience that average New Yorkers who already had to live the nightmare of 9/11 will have to bear? Irrespective of the fact that the supreme court found military tribunals more than appropriate? Irrespective of the fact that these terrorists were not captured in the U.S., not citizens, not captured by police, their evidence not processed by a crime scene unit and not following a typical civilian chain of custody, and with no Miranda rights? Irrespective of the fact that some were water-boarded? Irrespective of the fact that now, as with all Americans who face our civil criminal justice system, these animals are now considered innocent until such time they are proven guilty? For real?
The decision to hold these trials in New York is so flawed, so poorly thought out that it's incomprehensible. This is the worst decision you've made, and ten months in, I'd expect some improvement in your decision making capabilities. The attacks on 9/11 weren't directed toward an individual or group, but rather to the entire nation. One of the targets was a major center of business, the other the headquarters of our military, the Pentagon. Had flight 93 made it to the terrorists destination, our White House would have been the third target - that's two out of three targets representing our government. These attacks were not mere crimes but an acts of war carried out on our country by a foreign enemy.
This isn't about rule of law either, because the tribunals, which have been employed throughout American history, were found by the Supreme Court to be lawful and appropriate. Meanwhile our justice system has its shortcomings - criminals get off on technicalities and innocent people go to jail for technicalities every day. Our civil justice system, which isn't on trial, simply isn't designed for dealing with war crimes. There's the issue of classified information, which if provided to the defense as part of discovery could be leaked to terrorists. That is if it isn't dismissed outright because of how it was obtained. The only way to get around these issues is to twist the already twisted legal system, setting precedents that erode all of our rights. And does this now mean that soldiers fighting in Afghanistan need to also worry about reading the enemy their Miranda rights and collecting all evidence with tweezers and ziplocks while RPGs are fired at them? Yes, the first WTC bombers were tried by the FBI and look how well that worked out for the nation. At the end of the day, the reasons to do this are few and political; the reasons not to do this are many and relate to the safety of the nation and the people of New York. And it was precisely this type of thinking that preceded our getting attacked on 9/11 in the first place.
You're not serious about winning the wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq, you don't really understand that we face a dangerous enemy, and you've quite literally even denied that there is a war on terror at all. You lack the will, conviction, experience, and even leadership required to responsibly end the wars we are involved in. The very worst thing you could do right now is send more troops into harms way only to continue your politicizing and dithering while more troops die in a conflict that we lost when Americans went to the ballot box last November. Send the troops home now Mr. President.
Regards,
The Obnoxious American
I've been (re)reading Isaac Asimov's classic 'Foundation' science fiction series. It's the story of an galactic empire, which has collapsed under its' own weight, and a plan by scientist Hari Seldon, devised to create a second, more integrated and robust society. The plan is formulated to bring about a new galactic empire within 1000 years of the first empire's demise, instead of the predicted 30,000 years of wars and internecine fighting should the plan not be implemented. The entire series posits a galaxy populated by a single intelligent species, ostensibly homo sapiens. As I've been reading the books, it's occurred to me that Asimov's notion of a galaxy populated solely by human beings seems rather quaint today. Modern astronomy predicts an extremely large number of planets in our universe on which life could potentially emerge, and were intelligent life forms to evolve on those worlds it would almost certainly differ genetically and morphologically from ourselves.
Many authors and film makers depict such extraterrestrials as adversaries who would like to have us for lunch. Literally. This model of extraterrestrial behavior, I classify here as the "Space Nazis Paradigm". H. G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds' and Orson Scott Card's 'Ender' series are classic examples of the Space Nazi model. Card invents an arthropod-like species of bipedal bugs with opposable digits that swarm through space in search of planets to sack like their r-selected distant cousins, the locusts. This idea has been extrapolated in films like the 'Alien' series, in which futuristic weapons manufacturers try to harness "the perfect killing machine" in the form of an armored bipedal being, again with opposable digits, and blood that is so acidic it dissolves steel. The Space Nazi paradigm also embodies the underlying theses for blockbuster films like The Matrix and Independence Day.
Even the excellent comedy film, 'Men in Black' was based on an invasive space "bug". Men in Black differs in one major respect in its' inclusion of intelligent extraterrestrial species which are amenable to living in harmony with humans. The 'Star Wars' franchise mixed it up a bit as well, offering the comedic relief of the gargantuan muppet, Chewbacca, as well as the mildly offensive Jar-Jar Binks as well as some hostile morphologically divergent species. Unlike Bukowski, Speilberg does barflies of the galaxy a great disservice in his depiction of the camaraderie of sharing a drink with your galactic mates at the risk of having your head blown off.
Friday, November 20, 2009. 145 evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience," in which they declared their shared opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Though only hours old, the declaration has already been declared "historic" by those whose job it is to designate historic declarations. Several reasons were cited for the historic designation of the declaration:
While some may quibble with the Manhattan Declaration's historical accuracy, no one can dispute its inherent historicness. In addition, the declaration is also noteworthy for its futureness, envisioning a time when religious institutions will be forced to do really, really bad things by "soft despots." The signers vow that they will follow Martin Luther King Jr. in disobeying any law that would require their institutions to "bless immoral sexual partnerships" or "participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act." The day that those soft despots force the nation's churches to engage in embryo-destructive research will be a dark one indeed, and we owe our gratitude to these courageous religious leaders who are willing to face imprisonment or even loss of tax exempt status for resistance to such immoral hypothetical laws.
Thus does the Manhattan Declaration join the lofty ranks of other proud historic-futuristic declarations like the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which while not technically a declaration has been awarded the designation of honorary declaration in light of its declarative qualities). Thank you, Christian leaders, for overlooking your petty theological squabbles to unify against our common enemies: desperate women, homosexuals, and all those judges, politicians, and newspeople who facilitate their immoral practices.
Witness history and sanity unravel in happy unison at my Persecution Politics series at dagblog.com.
Kafka's Metamorphosis - the story of a man who wakes up one morning as a cockroach.
The Emperor's New Clothes - the story of a deluded man who paraded naked, with only a child to speak up and question the received wisdom: But he isn't wearing anything!
The risk clearly grows when one theorizes about humility without having any authentic experience of it. As Pseudo-Macarius noted: Christianity runs the risk of getting carried away bit by bit beyond its limits so that it will end up having the same significance as atheism.
[Andre Louf quoting a 4th century spiritual guide]
Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority - a study of how someone dressed in a lab coat can induce ordinary people to subject others to what they believe is excruciating abuse.
Phillip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment - where ordinary students, dubbed the guards, quickly began to abuse other students, dubbed the prisoners, as a byproduct of enforcing discipline in an "experimental prison" study.
First calling themselves "tea baggers" - thanks to lack of cultural knowledge about the sexual nature of that term - increasingly this nation-wide collection of populace is being referred to as the "Tea Party." While it surely intended to stoke the "patriotic" fervor of those who see themselves as part of this movement, this appellation is very inaccurate.
but we ought to do it according to Martin Wolf in today's FT. Because this time it really is different.
The bankers got their bonuses because their banks made money . But the banks only made money because the government bailed them out either directly or by its handling of the economy,
Says Wolf "'ordinary people can accept that riisk takers receive huge rewards. But such rewards for those who have been rescued by the state and bear substantial responsibility for the crisis of surely intolerable"
Here's the link.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9d3132c-d55b-11de-81ee-00144feabdc0.html
<a><img src="http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o28/fairleft/healthcareshouldbefree.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Or say thank you to <a href="Rev'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/amen-rev-dr-ray-hammond-a_b_358957.html">Rev. Ray Hammond</a>, founder of the <a href="Boston'>http://www.bostontenpoint.org/index.html">Boston Ten Point Coalition</a>:
<blockquote>We wanna guarantee every child access to all of the health services that they need and I don't care whether they've got Medicaid or they've got CHIP or they've got private insurance or they've got the insurance that our elected representatives get... . Last thing we want -- tell your neighbor, 'Get rid of the jigsaw puzzle!' You go from one state to the next, and in one state a child is covered and in the next state the child is not covered. That's not right!</blockquote>
And thanks to the <a href="New'>http://www.childrenshealthne.org/alerts?id=0089">New England Alliance for Children's Health</a> and their action alert:
<blockquote>During the mark up process, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - WV) that preserves the CHIP program in its current form and maintains existing Medicaid and CHIP coverage for children through at least 2019. This amendment was substantively revised from its original version. To view the language of the revised Rockefeller amendment, please click here.
The Rockefeller amendment would require states to maintain income eligibility levels for children currently enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP and would allow states to expand these eligibility levels at any time. The CHIP benefit package and cost-sharing rules would continue as under current law, with states beginning to receive a higher CHIP match rate in 2014. ...
ACTION STEP
Please contact your senators and ask them to reach out to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) and urge him to include the Rockefeller CHIP amendment and the EPSDT provisions from the original Chairman's mark in the final Senate bill.</blockquote>
<a href="Stan'>http://washingtonindependent.com/67850/experts-chip-repeal-could-reduce-kids-access-to-health-care">Stan Dorn</a> at the <a href="Urban'>http://www.urban.org/authors/authortopic.cfm?expertid=7676&topicid=123">Urban Institute</a> also stepped up:
<blockquote>Stan Dorn, senior health policy researcher at the Urban Institute, said there are certain advantages to scrapping CHIP. Both Medicaid and exchange plans, for example, would never require congressionalreauthorization -- a process CHIP is subjected to every few years, he pointed out. But due to CHIP's affordability, Dorn said "it's clear" that kids "are much better off" under CHIP than they would be under private exchange plans.
"It's not even a close question," Dorn said during a children's health care forum on Capitol Hill Friday.
Studies suggest Dorn's concerns are valid. <a href="One'>http://www.firstfocus.net/pages/3635">One analysis</a>, conducted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, an actuarial research firm, found that families living between 175 and 225 percent of the federal poverty level pay just 2 percent or less of treatment costs under CHIP. Under the proposed exchange plans, researchers found, those same families would pay up to 35 percent of their children's health costs.</blockquote>
And thanks also to <a href="First'>http://www.firstfocus.net/pages/3606">First Focus</a>, the national children's advocacy group, and its director <a href="Bruce'>http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200911030880">Bruce Lesley</a>, who adds to the above:
<blockquote>"CHIP is the stronger coverage package, and we are very concerned about the idea that those kids would be moved over without some protection," said Bruce Lesley, director of First Focus, the national child advocacy group that commissioned the actuarial study.
The CHIP program includes developmental screening and preventative care that is not covered by most adult plans. It covers a wide range of services, including doctor and hospital visits, immunizations and prescriptions, tests and X-rays, diabetic care, and dental and vision care. It provides case management for children with special needs.
"There are many wonderful parts of the reform legislation, and many things in health care that need to be changed," Lesley said, "but this is one that should be left alone."</blockquote>
And a big shout out to <a href="Mike'>http://washingtonindependent.com/66874/in-house-health-bill-kids-play-%E2%80%98lottery-of-geography%E2%80%99">Mike Lillis</a> at the Washington Independent, for covering the issue when too many pwoggies seem all too willing to sweep children under the rug in the interest of 'getting _something_ passed'.
As I said in an <a href="earlierhttp://thewildwildleft.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=2EDFE0D8CE6C9FE2907ADFCDACB09353?diaryId=2623">earlier</a> <a href="diaryhttp://pffugeecamp.com/diary/441/axing-chip-big-pwogs-conspiracy-of-silence">diary</a>, CHIP is not being killed (it's still dead in the House bill) out of ignorance about what its destruction will do. In fact, the concerns of Marian Wright Edelman and others have been reflected and rejected in the House debate, as <a href="Lillishttp://washingtonindependent.com/66874/in-house-health-bill-kids-play-%E2%80%98lottery-of-geography%E2%80%99">Lillis</a> notes:
<blockquote>Some House lawmakers recognize the potential problems. During the markup of health reform legislation in the Education and Labor Committee, for example, lawmakers passed an amendment - offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) - requiring that all exchange plans offer EPSDT services. That proposal, however, was stripped out in the final bill.
Another amendment, offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Col.), would have prevented the shift from CHIP to private plans unless the White House provided certification that the private plans offered comparable benefits. That proposal passed the Energy and Commerce Committee, but was also removed in the final bill.
DeGette's office said earlier this week that the certification language was removed "to reflect some budgetary constraints."</blockquote>
Finally, as I think I said somewhere along the way, <strong>what matters is the guarantee of no cost increases and coverage as good as that provided by CHIP</strong>. Saving CHIP is what accomplishes that right now, but there are also other ways of achieving those goals.
Anyway, the fight ain't over; let's keep our eyes on children's needs.
I'm beginning to see many reasons why Barack Obama may choose not to run for reelection.
1. It became clear early on that Republicans felt it was their "turn" to get even, and had no intention of supporting any Democratic president, let alone this one. Therefore, trying to get anything passed through Congress would be fruitless if Republicans win more seats in 2010 and thereafter. (I doubt the Dems could even get the design of a new postage stamp passed.)
The partisan gridlock has gone on since Clinton beat Bush 41, with the Republicans seeing red over that embarrassment. Then, with a vengeance, when Republicans got a little power back in 1994, they began an all-out crusade to bring down President Clinton (finally the sex scandal gave them what they wanted). So when Bush 43 was elected, everyone who had loved and supported Clinton finally got even for the Clinton-bashing by non-stop Bush-bashing (except for that brief period of time following the attacks of 911). Sounds childish already, doesn't it?
By 2008, it was the Dem's turn to win Washington again, and all the Bush supporters turned the tables on those Bush-bashing liberals with even more exaggerated non-stop Obama bashing. And round and round it goes, and nothing gets done except yapping and gnashing of teeth. Eye-for-an-eye politics. How grown up.
2. Independents may either move to the Republican camp because they're willing to give anything "new" a try that would revamp the economy, and especially the job market. Or they will stay home, thereby giving away the mid-term election to the Republicans who, carrying all their vindictive regalia, will undoubtedly go to the polls in droves. Either way, President Obama's credibility gap will widen even further.
3. Obama's health care initiative is going nowhere as long as the economy sucks and unemployment continues to remain high. Likewise any energy package. Unless he is miraculously successful with his education reform initiatives, Obama will have no "signature" domestic issue to enhance this chapter of his career.
4. The war in Afghanistan may still turn as ugly as the war in Iraq did during Bush's mid-term, and he never did recover his popularity and approval ratings thereafter, becoming one of the lamest lame duck presidents in history.
If all of the above comes about as a perfect storm, President Obama will be looked upon as the "Jimmy Carter" of the 21st Century.
It was an uphill battle for Obama at the outset. He didn't create, nor is he responsible for the economic mess this country finds itself, but the great masses of people who are suffering are blaming him anyway, and no amount of verbal explanations, projections, and promises are satisfactory. Nor will they be. Ironically, people want CHANGE! Imagine that.
If I were to advise President Obama, I would tell him to announce he will not run again shortly after the results of the mid-term election next November. That since he was unable to accomplish anything but fuel the fires of partisan politics, perhaps it's time for some other Democrat to give it a try. Or maybe wish a Republican luck with the same problems, only turned upside down with the Dems becoming the "Party of No" next time. Round 5 anyone? Or is it time to end this nonsense!
I would advise President Obama that his "legacy" would not be pretty if the economic problems are not resolved. He would forever be remembered as the one who screwed it up (even if he didn't). I would ask him to remember LBJ's history and how he was reviled at the time he chose not to run for reelection, but when history wrote the story honestly, President Johnson was responsible for many of the cherished benefits we now take for granted and in the end he couldn't be blamed entirely for the Vietnam quagmire.
I would advise him that it's an impossible dream that the power of the Beltway insiders will bend to the warm and fuzzy hope that changing the way Washington does business for the sake of the country is all that's needed, when in reality what's 'needed' by the major power brokers are back room deals to satisfy personal agendas. And if you're not willing to pony up to deal making, then there's always those pesky moles who will sell you out to thousands of Internet buyers (whereas it used to be merely to The Enquirer).
I would advise President Obama that he seemed to be more effective as a spokesman for the Democratic Party, making a difference one issue--one neighborhood at a time--rather than trying to effect sweeping change (improvements) on a national scale. There is too much hatred; too much bitterness. Let somebody else become the whipping boy.
Finally, I would advise the President that he would be able to be a better father to his adolescent children at a time they need more guidance than they ever will, and that exposing them to even more of the ugliness that surrounds him (and his wife) would stop.
The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars
House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor
Special Guests
Big names and big brains
Special Features
Pressing topics and trends
Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.
All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.
