5 Big Things Obama Did Wrong In 2009

One common misconception that conservatives have about liberals/progressives is that we don't hold our leadership accountable, that we follow them blindly like mindless creatures of habit. And while that glaring piece of projection tells us more about Conservatives than they would care to admit, it should be pointed out that during Obama's first year as President, those that voted for and supported him throughout the year have let it be known that we are holding him accountable.

Michelle Malkin took a break from her daily, metaphorical ping-pong-ball show that usually delights her mouth-agape followers to claim that is was in fact the Democrats, not the GOP, that were breaking apart like the chips at the bottom of the bag. All that piece did was reveal that Malkin and her ilk prefer the paranoid, conspiratorial, shouting rather than substantive debate on issue - which was precisely what Democrats were engaging in with one another. However, Malkin seems to think that by saying "no they're not" that that makes it true. Sad to say that some people believe her, but these are the same people that think that Interpol is going to come to their homes with a census worker and take away all the books written by conservative authors and put them in FEMA concentration camps.

But let's get back to the topic at hand - things Obama has done wrong this year. In no particular order, here we go:

1 - He's sending more troops to Afghanistan

This isn't the first troop increase of Obama's presidency. Back in March, he put through orders to increase troop levels that were originally requested back when Buch/Cheney were still in office. That request sat idle for 8 months until Obama implemented it, and then was accused of "dithering" by Dick Cheney and conservatives had a new toy word to play with on television.

The reason that Obama's second troop increase is wrong is because of where we are in that area of the world. We are in a place that has a massively corrupt government and a military force that is far away from being prepared to take on the task of securing their nation on their own. We don't need to get sucked into "nation building" like we did with Iraq. But more so than that, those that we are fighting have moved into other countries, have began to reconstitute in many ways and we are literally inches away from dropping the ball because we are putting too sharp a focus on a place that has a rich history of bringing failure to occupying forces.

There was a time when I thought that putting more effort into Afghanistan was right. Not so much that it would require putting more boots on the ground, but focus more on targeted strikes, and the utilization of Special Ops. But I'm not even sure that that is what is needed anymore.

The one things that makes me think that a complete pullout would do us more good that staying and injecting more troops is that we lose perspective on other areas, like Yemen. Conservative war-hawks think the one and only solution is preemptive strikes and an occupying force that takes over a nation in order to destabilize it so private American interests can come in a wreak economic and socio-political havoc in order to "win the hearts and minds" of that country's people. That tactic has never worked to benefit the US so why do they think it will now?

Focus more on national security and get the hell out to Afghanistan right now. And for those conservatives that may be reading this, take a look at your history and find out what Reagan did after the terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut : he got us the fuck out of there.

The only caveat that Obama has offered is what appears to be an exit strategy within the next calendar year, but that may appear to be subject to change.


2 - He didn't repeal DADT

One giant piece of conservative legislation, that was enacted by a Democratic president, is Dont' Ask, Don't Tell. On it's face, it appeared to be a way for gays to serve in the military without the fear that they would be discovered. But the reality was much more sinister - they were denied their own identity and ability to serve their country openly and proudly. And for that reason, DADT should have never been put into place to begin with.

But there is a slippery slope with this sort of legislation. One of the main problems that people have with politicians is that they sometimes make decisions based solely on the how one thing or another will harm or benefit them politically. Many within the conservative Republicans operate on this platform more so than those within the Democratic party. From benefiting special interest groups and ensuring that big business holds power over the American public, Republicans are certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers when it comes to thinking politically instead of thinking of the American public.

Obama's primary weakness is that he is far too eager to try and reach out to people that are against him politically. This has been seen in literally every piece of legislation that he has signed off on. And to that point, it is beyond me why he would not just simply repeal this with only Democratic support. After all, the Republicans have shown time and again that the entire time Obama sits at the desk in the Oval Office that they have absolutely no desire to hear, or even consider, one thing he says. And if Obama isn't doing away with DADT, then it's a political move that is going to gain him no points.

3 - He didn't repeal DOMA

Rather than repeat my statements on DADT, it's far easier to understand that DOMA and DADT have not been removed for the same reasons which they were implemented to begin with.

4 - He seemed to have caved on the Public Option in healthcare reform

Far too many things have been stated about proposed healthcare reform that simply aren't true. From the death-panel meme, to rationing, to doctors across the country suddenly deciding to stop practicing medicine is this passes, conservatives have muddied the waters to such an extent that one can hardly penetrate the surface with any facts. One fact, thought, is indisputable - Barack Obama campaigned on a Public Option in healthcare reform.

It appears that Obama is simply eager to get some semblance of healthcare reform passed as quickly as possible, with the ability for it to be amended later on to include such things as a robust public option, to makes improvements along the way. But this has even been a topic of discussion of late - can it even be amended?

The only thing that gives me pause when considering the fact that Obama has completely scrapped his initial plan is that he can still use the line-item veto if he so chooses. Not only that, but the completely abhorrent Senate version of the bill still has to be put through conference and combined with the Congressional bill that is light-years away better.

Since this was such a key portion of his platform for election to begin with, I find it hard to understand why he seemingly has removed it as an option all together. Again, could this be because he is hoping to gain some Republican support? If so, he's fooling himself into thinking it's going to work.

5 - He called for and hoped for bipartisanship all year

This could arguably be Obama's biggest mistake since gaining the office of the President. In his inaugural speech, he famously said that he would "extend a hand if you would unclench your fist". A great line and a great ideal to hold, but when the opposition has both fists not only clenched but flailing around like a rabid monkey, what good is bipartisanship?

From many people's point of view, simply believing that the members of the Republican party have even the tiniest desire to work with Obama is not only naive, but utterly ignorant. Not only that, but responding to the likes of Fox"News" and even going on their network to do an interview does nothing but validate their reactionary blathering.

Far too many within the conservative movement are banking on the fact that 2010 will be the start of their come-back, that they will regain control of both houses of Congress with landslide victories. Mathematically this is plausible, but is a goal that isn't as easily attainable as they appear to have convinced themselves it is. Rather than extending his hand, Obama should have taken the stance that if Republicans were going to obstruct any and everything for whatever paranoid, delusional, reason they could, that they were of no benefit to the American public and simply gone on without them.

In this country, we still - for the most part - operate on a system of "majority rule". That's how elections are won, and that's how important decisions are made in everyday life. In Congress, it's called "reconciliation". Conservatives call it the "nuclear" option. Within those halls in Washington, it would seem that a majority means nothing - that you must have a "super-majority" to get anything done. Why is this? What good is having more seats than the other party if you can't use them or refuse to use them.

Obama should have, but he needs to, remove any and all preconceived notions that he can have bipartisan support for his plans. The Republican party, in many respects, has won several battles, but the metaphorical war has yet to be completed. And if Obama continues to think that Republicans will work for him then he is fooling himself.

-------------------------------------------

There are certainly more things to be written about, but these five things have harmed Obama and the Democratic party in more ways than they might first realize. His presidency and the party which supports him are not lost, there is time to rebuild, reorganize, and regain ground that was lost. It's been a tough year and there are surely to be tough days within the next three years, and that's all the incentive that Obama should need to be a more effective leader for his party and this country.

Progress Report

Much is being made about Obama's "self-evaluation" for his first year as President. From the more predictable tirades from the far-right calling this ego-driven blather to tebaggers equating this with Obama claiming that he can perform complex brain-surgery, I would honestly have to say I don't agree with any of it - including Obama's assertion that he gets a B+.



From my perspective, he gets a C. He's passing, but can do better.

Here's a list of things that I believe he needs to do in order to get that grade up.

1 - Veto any healthcare legislation that does not include a Public Option. While I am of the belief that this country would be better off under a Single Payer structure, a "robust" Public Option is light-years away better than what the Senate has done to reform up to today.

2 - He needs to answer his critics in a more direct fashion. When people like Dick and Liz Cheney essentially calling you a traitor, you should respond. If you've got people like the teabaggers railing that you weren't born in the US, you respond. The only problem is creating the illusion that these questions and concerns are far more valid than they are.

3 - Don't continually give ground to Republicans if they aren't willing to meet you half way. Far too often, Obama and his administration have given Republicans chance after chance with no common ground being met - only obstructionism and fear mongering from those same Republicans that clamour for "bi-partisanship".

4 - No secret deals with Wall-Street or big corporations. Sever all ties with them and the people will rally around you more than ever. This alleged deal with PhRMA and the White House has twisted healthcare reform into something almost unrecognizable. Get all administration officials with close relationships with Wall-Street out ( ie: Geithner and Paulson )

5 - Increase transparency. While it appears that a large portion of what has gone on since Jan 20th has been open to the public, there is a lot more that we need to see. Naturally, there are things that can't be due to security and classification issues, but I am speaking from a realistic standpoint. If it doesn't violate any previously established laws that prevent revealing info/documents to the public, be up front about it.

6 - Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely. The Bush administration pulled focus from the initial mission not only when Iraq was invaded by when he lost Bin Laden in Tora Bora. We don't need to be occupying either country any longer. The Focus should be on domestic security and finding key Al Queada in Pakistan with a reasoned time-table and goals for that. We are dangerously close to nation-building in Afghanistan and that is something that we don't need to be doing

These key points are what Obama can definitely improve on. As of right now he's lost enough ground that conservatives feel they've gained the upper hand, but there's time enough to correct the mistakes of this first year. Obama doesn't need to be a one-term President - his goals are noble and will benefit this country no matter what elements from the Right may think

The Dithering Bloom Of Bush/Cheney

In a recent conversation on Twitter with @AnUnlikelySaint, I pointed out that as recently as last year, Bush/Cheney did not answer a call for more troops in Afghanistan. My assertion, back up by a report in McClatchy which I blogged about yesterday, is solidified with new information coming from Admiral Micheal Mullen

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed back in a fact-checking dispute with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asserting that the Bush administration objected rejected a Pentagon request for more troops for Afghanistan last year.

Adm. Michael Mullen told a House committee Wednesday that Gen. David McKiernan, who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and this year, had asked for 20,000 troops for the effort but was rebuffed.

“We didn’t have them because they were pushed to Iraq,” the four-star admiral said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in response to a question from Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence. “That was the priority of the president.”

The conservative base, now faced with the reality that the Bush administration largely ignored Afghanistan in favor of attempting to nation-build in Iraq, are completley unwilling to recognize the failure that they had once claimed liberal/progressive Democrats embraced.

But while many who watched Obama's speech at West Point considered Obama's statement about troop requests and his patience on issuing another ( his first was in March - the one that Bush/Cheney ignored ) was directed at Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought it was all about him:

Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response. I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, "repeated" or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

But there is one problem with Rumsfeld's statement, he was the Sec. of Defense when this happened - it was Robert Gates, the man that is still holds the position today. And while conservatives will attempt to use this as a "well it's not really Bush/Cheney's fault, is it" defense, the reality of the matter is that Bush/Cheney have authority over Gates just as they had authority over Rumsfeld.

In the end, this whole concept of "dithering" by Obama is a non-starter. The best decision was made with a far more solid plan than at any time during the Bush administration, who largely ignored the mission in Afghanistan.

The Undefinable

Conservatives love to banter endlessly about a variety of subjects with which they are either completely unfamiliar ( ie: climate change ) or do know just enough about to be exceedingly dangerous.

Now that Obama has delivered his strategy address to the nation, it's time for those same conservatives to run around to every show they can get booked on and distribute the latest ream of talking points. Chief of which are ones about "success".

John McCain, the Senator who has graced more Sunday morning talk-shows since the election than just about anyone ever has, has sent in a piece to Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard blog.

The title of the article ( likely written by staffers and not McCain, hence byline "form the desk of John McCain" - like it's some memo about remembering to send out your Christmas cards ) speaks about how "success" is the real exit strategy.

Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President’s policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.

The whole piece is just like that, glittering generalities that we have heard since the beginning. No real meat, just enough filler to make it look like he has some real idea, some real concept that people can get behind. But I do have one question - what is "success".

Ever since Bush dragged our attention and focus away from Afghanistan and said that Iraq is the place to be, there have been multiple definitions of what "failure" is, but no definition of "success". There really hasn't even been a final goal that could be even loosely construed as attainable shown to the American public. It's all been about failure. Every discussion from the Right has been born from the catalyst of failure.

When people like McCain hear "exit strategy" they don't realize that even if there is "success", there would still have to be a strategy on how our forces leave. Were there just going to not worry about that until this illusive and mysterious "success" just happened one day and then worry about how to bring our men and women home? I wouldn't put that past them.

What we need to be asking our elected officials is simple - tell us what "success" in Afghanistan is, and be specific.

Beatdown

This was probably my favorite part of Obama's speech last night, as it took Dick Cheney to task over his "dithering" comment that conservatives have eagerly lapped-up like so much sweet candy.



Obama, though not calling out Dick Cheney directly as he should have, was responding to this:



And reports are coming in now that it was, in point of fact, Cheney that was the Dithering Darth Vader of the White House. McClatchy is reporting that Cheney and the Bush White House sat on simular Afghanistan plans for 8 months, and it was Obama that ended up implementing those plans.

Shorter Dick Cheney

Cheney Goes After Obama On Afganistan

I'm hoping that the fact that myself and George W. Bush largely ignored this particular conflict isn't going to matter to you. But let's also not forget that I was never part of the Executive or Legislative branches of government, therefor I cannot be held responsible for the lack of understanding and support of the mission in Afganistan from 2001 until 2008 - which you are still instructed to never mention in public. In summation, I rule, Obama drools. Thank you.

Shorter Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air

What Would The Federal Deficit Buy

Nevermind that I had not once questioned the ever ballooning spending of the Bush administration on things like Iraq, Afganistan, and tax cuts that made the cost of healthcare reform look like a value-meal at McDonalds - things that were never truly included in the bookeeping of Republicans - but I am all in on accepting this rationale that spending is absolutely radical, horrible, and anti-American and this video will prove the point what we have never been concerned with for the past decade.

Oh, GOP, Why Do You Hate The Troops So?

Glenn Thrush reports that select members of the Republican party are willing to vote "no" the current funding bill for troops in Afganistan because Hate-Crimes legislation is attached to it.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians.

Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was "an abuse of power" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did.

He accused the speaker of pursuing her social agenda "on the backs" of the troops.

While adding on select bills to legislation that is being voted on is in no way a new practice, the actions of Boehner and Pence are nothing more than political posturing. But you knew that anyway.

While conservatives are more than willing to use the American military as sticks to beat people with, they have a complete lack of understanding when it comes to hate-crimes. Do people like Boehner and Pence not see that crimes against people sexual orientation are not only wrong but pervasive in this country? Are they willing to ignore the opressed and ridiculed in society in favor of funding a conflict in Afganistan that they understand even less?

Exit question - and since conservatives are so concerned in this area: who's going to pay for Afganistan funding?

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Who really is winning the message war on healthcare? After all, it should be pointed out that the message and the facts aren't always one in the same. When looking at it from this angle, it would appear that conservatives are winning the "fear" game, as their idiotic prattlings are being consistantly validated by the media coverage they get.

- When are the anti-healthcare set going to be held accountable for mocking the sick? After all, Micheal Steele did it without the slightest bit of remorse recently when mocking a woman who's mother had recently died from cancer.

- Why are conservatives so enamoured with instant gratification? They oppose the recovery package because they claim not enought is happening at a fast pase. But then again, what about Cash For Clunkers? That program worked too fast for them. Their main issue seemed to be that car dealers weren't paid in a timely fashion. I mean, nevermind that new cars were purchased and car makers added workforce to compensate.

- It's apparently alright now for conservative commentators to oppose the ongoing conflict in Afganistan and the slight hold that America still has in Iraq. What was that clever little talking point they used to use? Oh, yes, advocating defeat / cut-and-run / waving the white flag of surrender. My, how times have changed

Oh Yeah, We've Still Got Troops In Afgansitan, Don't We!

Click to see video of George W. Bush

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to understand is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So there is an active presence and there are more troops there than there were. But we’re constantly reassessing and seeing whether or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

The Surge : The Sequal!!!

Well, not really a 'sequal' per say, but actually putting resources where they should have been in the first place.

The Bush administration, so intent on diverting our attention away from Afganistan, the Taliban, and bin Laden ( is he even still around? ), has perpetrated a battle-field faliure so vast in scale that an entire generation will forever refer to this as "our Vietnam".

The lack of planning, vision - and some would say competence - has allowed the Taliban and Al Qeada to reconstitue.

More from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Grappling with a record death toll in an overshadowed war, President Bush promised Wednesday to send more U.S. troops into Afghanistan by year's end. He conceded that June was a "tough month," in fact, the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began.

"One reason why there have been more deaths is because our troops are taking the fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn't like our presence there because they don't like the idea of America denying safe haven (to terrorists)," Bush told reporters. "Of course there's going to be resistance."

Bush said it was a tough month too for the Taliban. But the once-toppled Islamist regime in Afghanistan has now rebounded with deadly force.

More U.S. and NATO troops have died in the past two months in Afghanistan than in Iraq, a place with triple the number of U.S. and coalition forces.

You're doin a heck-of-a-job W.

Jim Webb Supports More Than Bush or McCain

We hear the slogan constantly, repeated as if a soothing mantra for neo-conservatives across the land - support the troops. But, what does that truly mean? Can you show support for the American military without supporting the mission? Several within the Republican party have insisted that the two are not mutually exclusive. I beg to differ.

I would have you ask yourself - what has George W. Bush done that you considering 'supporting' the American military? You may state that his requests ( read : demands ) for more money to fund the conflicts in Iraq and Afgansitan constitute support. But, what about inadequate material, the shortage of ammunition, body armor, vehicles, et al? Is it still support when that support is less than desireable? Rumsfeld stated that 'we go to war with the army that we have'. This may be true, but one can still enhance that army as needed.

John McCain consistantly uses the American military - and his service in Vietnam - as a tool in his campaign. He claims to 'support' but didn't even bother to show up to vote for it. Of course, McCain's absence didn't stop bush from praising McCain for his assitance in expanding the GI Bill.



This is, as some of you may remember, a bill that McCain was staunchly against. Bush was even against it. Both his, and McCain's rationale were less than convincing to many.




This new GI Bill was passed - along with more money for Iraq and Afgansitan. And what is troubling me most is the fact that Bush and McCain don't seem eager to support the American military personel that are returning home. Jim Webb, on the other hand, knows what support truly means.


From the Daily Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed into law a new GI Bill Monday that promises to give hundreds of thousands of military veterans a free college education at state universities.

The legislation is the handiwork of Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who made passage of a 21st century GI Bill his top priority since joining the Senate last year.

The bill, which is expected to cost $62.8 billion over a decade, aims to give war veterans the same education benefit enjoyed by veterans of World War II.

Veterans who have served at least three years of active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, will be eligible for a full four-year college education. The benefit covers tuition at the most expensive in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend and $1,000 a year for books and supplies.