Crooks and Liars - Barack Obama

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: "Not Health, Not Care, Not Reform"

John Amato — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:40:07 +0000

Keith Olbermann stated that he is against the Senate health care bill in a "Special Comment" tonight. Here's the video and transcript.

Special Comment: Not Health, Not Care, Not Reform

Obama talks tough with bankers on re-regulation, but the right-wing denialism runs deep

David Neiwert — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:00:05 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (541)

PLAYS: (518)

Today President Obama had a meeting with a group of leading bankers -- CEOs from firms like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs -- to talk about the need for banks to start getting the money that's going into banks' reserves right now start flowing into the economy in the form of lending activity.

But Obama also talked about the bigger picture -- namely, the absolute need to reinstate many of the financial-sector regulations that were torn down in the past decade and more, which led to the economic disaster we're now trying to recover from:

We also discussed the need to pass meaningful financial reform that will protect American consumers from exploitation and American -- the American economy from another financial crisis of the kind which we just came out of.

I noted the resistance of many of the financial sectors to these reforms -- the industry has lobbied vigorously against some of them -- some of these reforms on Capitol Hill. So I made it clear that it is both in the country's interest -- and ultimately, in the financial industry's interest -- to have updated rules of the road to prevent abuse and excess. Short-term gains are of little value to our banks if they lead to long-term chaos in the economy.

And I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people. If they wish to fight common-sense consumer protections, that's a fight I'm more than willing to have.

The way I see it, having recovered with the help of the American government and the American taxpayers, our banks now have a greater obligation to the goal of a wider recovery, a more stable system, and more broadly shared prosperity.

So I urged them to work with us in Congress to finish the job of reforming our financial system to bring transparency and accountability to the financial markets; to ensure that the failure of one bank or financial institution won't spread throughout the entire system, and to help protect consumers from misleading and dishonest practices with products like credit and debit cards, with mortgages and auto and payday loans.

Now, I should note that around the table all the financial industry executives said they supported financial regulatory reform. The problem is there's a big gap between what I'm hearing here in the White House and the activities of lobbyists on behalf of these institutions or associations of which they're a member up on Capitol Hill. I urged them to close that gap, and they assured me that they would make every effort to do so.

In the end, my interest isn't in vilifying any one person or institution or industry; it's not to dictate to them or micromanage their compensation practices to ensure that consumers and -- my job is to ensure that consumers and the larger economy are protected from risky speculation and predatory practices, that credit is flowing, that businesses can grow, and jobs are once again being created at the pace we need.

Susie already pointed out the latest Paul Krugman column on this very subject, complete with a history lesson:

America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted.

The first big wave of deregulation took place under Ronald Reagan — and quickly led to disaster, in the form of the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. Taxpayers ended up paying more than 2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of around $300 billion today, to clean up the mess.

But the proponents of deregulation were undaunted, and in the decade leading up to the current crisis politicians in both parties bought into the notion that New Deal-era restrictions on bankers were nothing but pointless red tape. In a memorable 2003 incident, top bank regulators staged a photo-op in which they used garden shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of paper representing regulations.

And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Ironically, the effort to contain the crisis required government intervention on a much larger scale than would have been needed to prevent the crisis in the first place: government rescues of troubled institutions, large-scale lending by the Federal Reserve to the private sector, and so on.

But the financial sector -- and their friends in the Republican Party and the conservative movement -- are in complete and utter denial about this, as Krugman went on to explore vividly. Apparently, they're willing to completely wreck the economy all over again just for the sake of hanging onto one of the remaining scraps of conservative dogma -- namely, that deregulation is innately good, because government is innately bad.

The fact is that the financial sector, particularly these big banks, have been flooding the Hill with lobbyists working hard to knock down any attempts to reinstate post-Depression regulations. Just ask Rep. Peter DeFazio, who is trying get the Glass-Steagall Act reinstated.

But because it is so intellectually and ethically bankrupt and so desperate to retain some semblance of power, the American Right is completely in the throes of denialism, which is best defined as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

So we get nonsense about the Community Reinvestment Act and how lazy shiftless minorities were the reasons for the Bush Recession.

At some point, the right-wing obfuscation has to stop. You'd think they'd realize it's in their own economic self-interest to stop. But that's like expecting a scorpion not to sting a dog on whose back it's crossing a river.

Fred Hiatt's Simple Mind

Jason Sigger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:00:20 +0000

SHORTER Fred Hiatt:

"There is no difference between GW Bush's Iraq surge in 2007 and Barack Obama's Afghan surge in 2010. Only silly Democrats could object to one but support the other."

Actually, Fred, there's a big difference between the two. The Bush administration and its supporters saw (continue to see?) Teh Surge 1.0 as essential to "winning" in Iraq, while most left-of-center military analysts saw it as a measure to protecting US troops but not really the central or sole contributer to stabilizing the country. With Teh Surge 2.0, once again, it isn't that this troop increase will allow the US government to "win" but it might be (again) one measure among many needed to stabilize Afghanistan. (no, Karl, it isn't to "fight terrorists." ).

But nuanced arguments about the reality of military operations aren't what Fred's all about. He'd rather continue his man-crush on GW and dream about the "success" that Iraq has become. And when the RNC supports the Afghan surge, you can be sure that it's more because they are still defending Teh Surge 1.0 of Iraq and not really thinking about how to finish operations in Afghanistan after Teh Surge 2.0.

Afghanistan Speech Open Thread

John Amato — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:00:25 +0000

Let us know what you're seeing and thinking--the speech itself and coverage of the speech.

Obama is scheduled to take the stage at West Point Military Academy at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific time, and the speech is expected to last 40 minutes.

If you are not near a television, you can watch the speech live-streamed at MSNBC.com. and VetVoices will be liveblogging it here.

[image from Political Graffiti]

Mr. President, Explain To Us Why We Should Even Want This Crappy Healthcare Bill

Susie Madrak — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:00:51 +0000

You know, it really is depressing - and infuriating - to see how little will actually be accomplished with this so-called health care "reform."

And unless the House leadership waves a magic wand in the conference committee hearings, I doubt much will change:

Measured against the promises President Obama and congressional Democrats have made about health-care reform, the bill the Senate begins debating this week could be setting Americans up for disappointment: Some of the main reforms would not take place for several years, and even when they do, some observers say, the bill does too little to make sure they would be enforced.

Until 2014, insurance companies could continue to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on people's medical history. Another highly touted reform -- banning annual and lifetime limits on coverage -- would take effect in 2010, but it would permit significant exceptions.

Even with those rules in place, "there's no power to really hold the insurance companies accountable," said consumer advocate Betty Ahrens, executive director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network. "It's toothless."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said the bill was a compromise. "This is not the legislation we would have written in a perfect world, but Senator Reid believes that this bill has the best chance possible to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster," Manley said.

The delay in implementing some key reforms contrasts with the urgency of Obama's call for action.

Although some changes might take years to implement, Obama said in July, "We shouldn't have to wait a long time to make sure that people don't lose their insurance because of a preexisting condition."

Delaying relief until 2014 means that Obama could face reelection -- and Congress be transformed by two elections -- before voters begin feeling the legislation's full effect.

Here's the real kicker: The feds won't even enforce their own laws. That's right, kids, it'll be left to the notoriously industry-friendly state regulators. The feds will only get involved under rare conditions.

Which means never. This is exactly what happened with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Insurers weren't allowed to make rescissions unless consumers defrauded the insurer or deliberately misrepresented their medical condition.

SS,DD.

Michael Moore Rewrites History of Obama Campaign on Afghanistan

Jon Perr — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Promoting his latest film earlier this year, Michael Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal when he declared, "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil." Now on the eve of President Obama's address to the nation on his Afghanistan strategy, Moore is rewriting the history of the campaign that put Obama in the Oval Office.

In an open letter to President Obama, Moore on Monday seems to have forgotten candidate Obama's aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

But at almost every turn in the 2008 campaign (for example, starting at about the 17:30 mark in the video above), it was Barack Obama who pledged to "finish the fight in Afghanistan."

In August 2007, as you'll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad - and forceful - foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its "no safe havens" doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

And while Republican presidential candidate John McCain in February 2008 blasted Obama's advocacy of unilateral American attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, by the beginning of last year the Bush administration itself was already carrying them out.

From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that "the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice." In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain's denial of this inescapable point:

"We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

During a major national security address on July 15, 2008, candidate Obama restated his case (see video above starting around the 17:30 mark):

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Throughout the summer and fall of 2008, the Pentagon and U.S. commanders in the field made clear they agreed with both Barack Obama's assessment of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his call for deploying additional resources there. In July, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and American commander there (and incoming CENTCOM chief) General David Petraeus acknowledged Al Qaeda was shifting its focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. By August, the Pentagon was backing Obama's call to send at least two more brigades to the region, reinforcements which as he rightly noted could only come from one place.

General David McKiernan, Stanley McChrystal's predecessor on the ground in Afghanistan, agreed with Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen that the situation along the Pakistan frontier is "precarious and urgent." As McKiernan himself made clear, the only "way" was to get the troops from Iraq:

Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. "That's really a zero-sum decision."

In early July 2008, Admiral Mullen admitted as much. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen told reporters that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

As President Obama stands poised to escalate the war in Afghanistan while purportedly offering an exit strategy from it, Americans can and should debate whether his is the right course for U.S. national security interests. The list of contingencies which must go right for the U.S. to succeed - curbing corruption in the Karzai government, securing Pakistani cooperation and commitment in battling insurgents in its frontier regions and buying off Pashtun tribal warlords, just to name a few - is a very long one. But to claim, as Michael Moore now does, that candidate Barack Obama never told his supporters he would dramatically ratchet up the American effort there is just fantasy.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

Before Obama Met Salahi, George Met Jack

Jon Perr — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:00:49 +0000

When it comes to social events at the White House, the only thing worse for a President than self-serving gate crashers is when the miscreant has an invitation. And so while conservatives gloat over the Secret Service failure that allowed climbers Michaele and Tareq Salahi to crash the state dinner for the Indian prime minister, it's worth remembering that when Republican uber lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff roamed the Bush White House, he was an honored guest.

For his part, President Obama has ordered a review into how the Virginia couple and would-be reality TV stars made their way into this week's function. For their part, even conservative bloggers fretted about the disturbing security lapse that allowed the Salahis to come "face to face with The One himself." But as another predictably suggested, it's all Obama's fault even when it isn't:

"It unfortunately also embarrasses the Secret Service, Obama, and pretty much the entire White House. It was Obama's first state dinner, and how will people remember it? They'll remember that two famewhore socialites snuck in and that his security allowed it to happen. This, for once, is not Obama's fault, but he's the one embarrassed by it inevitably. I wonder how long it will take him to blame this on President Bush, though."

Of course, you can't blame George W. Bush for letting the Salahis slither their way into a White House social function. But letting Jack Abramoff through the door is another matter altogether.

As you'll recall, in September 2008, Abramoff was sentenced to four years in prison for a lobbying scandal whose tentacles spread throughout Capital Hill and the Bush administration. And as the Washington Post recounted, Abramoff would have a lot of company in jail from among the ranks of his Republican colleagues:

More than a dozen people, including an Ohio congressman and a deputy secretary of the interior, have been convicted in the Abramoff lobbying scandal, and Justice Department officials said the investigation is continuing. Still under scrutiny are former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and retiring Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.).

Which is why the Bush White House was desperate to erase any evidence of the association between Abramoff, the President and his highest level staffers. On January 26th, 2006, President Bush denied any relationship with Abramoff, a "Pioneer" who raised over $100,000 for his reelection campaign:

"You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."

As it turned out, of course, George W. Bush knew Jack Abramoff and had his picture taken with the guy several times.

After the administration and Secret Service stonewalled repeated requests to release the complete visitor logs detailing Abramoff's arrivals, the House Government Reform Committee in September 2006 issued a damning report on his unimpeded access to the Bush White House. The bipartisan, 93-page analysis issued by ranking Republican Tom Davis (R-VA) and Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA) concluded current reporting requirements "failed to protect public officials from the ethical undertow generated by Abramoff's claims of access to executive branch deliberations, particularly at the White House."

That report documented what had been a revolving door between Abramoff's lobbying operation and the Bush White House. As the Washington Post reported:

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials between 2001 and 2004, to a report released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee...

The report, based on 14,000 e-mails and other documents, conveys many assertions by Abramoff and his team about their efforts to lobby White House officials on matters affecting their Indian tribal clients.

Abramoff's team offered officials tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts, the report states, but "in many instances the documents do not indicate whether the White House officials requested or attended the events." One who did accept tickets, the report said, was Susan Ralston, executive assistant to White House presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Among those Jack Abramoff was glad-handing was President George W. Bush.

As Time explained in January 2006, the denials from Bush and press secretary Scott McClellan ("The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him.") were simply laughable in the face of numerous photos (later scrubbed) from the presidential receptions Abramoff attended:

In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.

All Americans should be concerned for their President's safety when gate crashers can seemingly maneuver their way into a secure, invitation-only event at the White House. But the national embarrassment Americans feel about when Obama met Salahi should pale in comparison to when George met Jack.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

The Turkeys of Thanksgiving Future: What would a President Palin turkey pardon look like?

David Neiwert — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:00:59 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (1584)

PLAYS: (3459)

Watching President Obama make the traditional Thanksgiving Day turkey pardon today, I couldn't help thinking ... what if?

What if the wingnuts' wildest fantasies come true, and they ride back into the White House on the wave of right-wing populism now sweeping them? What would this day look like then?

And then I realized, of course, that we already had the answer.

So I made a little mashup fantasy of the view from Planet Wingnuttia. Enjoy. And Happy Thanksgiving.

Obama Appoints Loyal Bushie Dana Perino To Broadcasting Board Of Governors

Logan Murphy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:00:10 +0000

Yep, I did a double take too.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has tapped a former top aide of his predecessor George W. Bush to a key post on a board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.

Dana Perino, the first Republican woman to serve as White House press secretary, was appointed late Wednesday to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

Created in 1994, the BBG oversees all of the US government's non-military international broadcasting outlets, including Voice of America, Alhurra television, Radio Sawa, TV Marti, Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe. Read on...

Where to begin? I understand that President Obama campaigned on the idea of bipartisanship, but this is truly an insult. Forget that he is appointing an intellectual lightweight who ran cover for, and spread propaganda for the worst president in American history. Dana Perino stood before reporters and routinely lied to them and the world -- even defending the use of torture, calling it "effective, safe and legal."

And now President Obama believes that she has the integrity to hold a key position in an agency that oversees government-sponsored, international broadcasting?

Perino's appointment must be confirmed by the Senate, so it's not a done deal, but we have to make our voices heard. Contact your Senators and let them know your thoughts on the matter.

As Digby sez -- Perino is just a member of the club, playing the game.

How Many Troops Available for Afghanistan?

Jason Sigger — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:00:50 +0000

Spencer Ackerman has done a yeoman's job digging into the details as to whether the 40-44,000 troop estimate by Gen. McChrystal is even realistic to consider, when one counts the number of troops still in Iraq and Gen. Odierno's glacially slow deployment out of that country, the number of troops who have just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan (or Kosovo or the Phillipines or Egypt or any number of other deployments), numbers of troops assigned in Germany and S. Korea, and the number of troops that are left available. It's a pretty close thing.

Obama would have something of a cushion, but not much, in the early months of 2010. An additional five brigades will finish their 12 months of so-called “dwell time” at home between deployments by April 2010, providing an additional 22,600 troops, but by that time, about 10,200 troops will be scheduled to leave Afghanistan, leaving available a net gain of 12,400. More brigades become available in the summer and fall, although others currently in Afghanistan will be ending their scheduled deployments then as well. Under current Pentagon policy, dwell time for the National Guard varies, but can be no shorter than two years, and so it is possible but not certain that two National Guard brigades composed of 6,800 National Guard soldiers might be available for deployment by March 2010 as well, beyond the 24,000 theoretically available now. Pentagon leaders had hoped to extend dwell time this year, but that was before McChrystal’s request for additional troops.

There will undoubtably be a Marine regiment or two included in the mix, but (for all the noise and thunder) the Marines are a small part of the overall "boots on the ground" needed by McChrystal's projection. You can't count on increases from NATO - the Brits may throw another 500 troops into the mix, Germany just announced that its troops would stay another year but didn't commit to increases, and Canada's counting on next year being its last. I sincerely doubt that the other countries are going to do anything different. And I am sure not going to count onany sudden near-term increase of professionalism or competency in the Afgan army.

So my question is this: Did McChrystal select, and the Joint Chiefs endorse, a 40-44,000 troop increase in Afghanistan because it was the right number, or because it was in fact the upper limit of available active duty troops (assuming that the White House will not ask Congress to authorize the call up of more Reserves and National Guard units)? The authorized increase in troops that Congress allowed a few years ago isn't going to kick in enough replacements to really count in any significant way. As I and others have noted, increasing the US troop strength to 102,000 or so still is going to be insufficient to be successful in securing Afghanistan in any time less than several years. If this is the upper limit, that there will be no other active troops available in brigade-size units, then we're really limiting our strategic options to "influence" anyone else in the world.

This is probably a good indication of why the White House is really trying to understand what the options are and what the implications are. As Mark Grimsley notes, there is a general consensus that there is no need for a quick decision in a military sense, given that the situation is stable - AQ is contained, the Taliban aren't about to take Kabul, and our troops aren't on the edge of re-directing the Taliban's growth any time soon.

The real division of opinion is about whether completion of the strategic review is time urgent in a political sense. Does the length of the review reflect deliberation or vacillation, strength or weakness? Where people come down on this essentially reflects their opinion of Obama.

Which is why the Republicans are already set to take cheap shots at the White House no matter what the decision is, and despite any rationale for the final direction that President Obama identifies. I can understand Obama's focus on the economy and on health care - these domestic issues capture the attention of the public and he needs the political capital from the presidential election that is running out. But now we're finally in that point in time where Obama will have to announce his final decision. There's a lot riding on this decision, and I hope that Obama has the sense to identify his exit strategy and timeframe as justification for that decision.