In Defense of Barack Obama

First, let me say that I did not support President Obama in the primary, but I did vote for him in the general election. So, I was not one of those starry-eyed Obama supporters. But I was so relieved when he was elected. Finally, a smart, analytical, well-spoken president! He is still all those things. Unfortunately, he has been under siege by the Republicans since day one and Obama was naive enough to believe he could obtain bi-partisan support on issues such as health care. I don't know why he was so naive about that, perhaps his inexperience. Anyway, the Republicans have manipulated the media brilliantly to cast doubt in the minds of the American people regarding almost every Obama proposal. They create controversy using false indignation and lies. They hide behind all of these little special interest groups, which are funded by conservative Republicans. The news media (except, of late, NBC's David Gregory) does not challenge any of the Republicans' misstatements of the facts, even the most outrageous ones. Thus, we are left with stories about people claiming that Obama was not born in the U.S., that Obama is a Muslim that Obama was going to take away all the guns that the health care reforms will result in death panels and people going to jail if they did not buy insurance. The news media did not do their own research on the health care reform bill. These were all unsubstantiated claims. It didn't matter that, 25 years ago, we would have recognized that the people making these claims were mentally unbalanced, lying or just plain stupid. Their friends and neighbors would have walked away, laughing and shaking their heads and ignored them. It never would have made it to the news. Instead, the news media treats these claims as "legitimate points of view" and gives these "fingers" a national forum from which to proselytize, thus legitimizing these groundless claims. Now, they are seeking office.

Then, there are the spineless and spin-less Democrats in Congress, who, with some exceptions, are scared of their own shadows. They deserted Obama on the health care reform bill and on the issue of the Bush tax cuts. They acted in pure self-interest, choosing to please corporate donors rather than improve the lives of their constituents. Instead of being out there on Meet the Press, Face the Nation or The Situation Room, enthusiastically and aggressively supporting the president's legislative proposals, they went into hiding. How is President Obama expected to pass any effective legislation without his own party spinning it?

Now, progressives, many of whom were those starry-eyed Obama supporters, are upset at Obama's performance because he hasn't done enough. The progressives are disappointed that he increased the troops and stepped up the fighting in Afghanistan. However, he said he was going to do this in many campaign speeches and during the debates. I was disappointed that he did not repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy too, but I realize that Congress is filled with homophobes who are laden with testosterone. One can just do so much.

Let's review the good things President Obama has done: he picked Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State; his Justice Department filed a brief urging the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory; he supported/passed/signed the health care reform bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Small Business Jobs Act and Wall Street reform. He signed an Executive Order revoking President Bush’s Executive Order that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. President Obama's intelligence and demeanor immediately restored much of the international admiration and respect for this nation that had been corroded down to nothing under Bush.

Barack Obama has been President only twenty months. He came into office with his own agenda, but he has also had to contend with two wars and an economic crisis the extent of which this country had not seen in almost 80 years. During the primary and election season, I opined that many of the most ardent progressives had unrealistic expectations of Obama. Clearly, they did. Recall his words from his November 2008 victory speech:

This is your victory. And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. . . The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. . . There will be setbacks and false starts.

 To expect President Obama to solve all of the problems facing this nation in twenty short months, particularly considering the incredibly effective Republican interference, lies and propaganda machine, as well as the spineless, spin-less Democrats of the House and Senate, is unrealistic and unfair. This nation gave George Bush eight years to bring us to the eve of destruction. We should give President Obama more than twenty months to mop up Bush’s mess and we should support him in his efforts.

WELL SAID !

Why GOP Is Not the Answer

Mitchell Bard said it well on his blog today over at Huffington Post:

"As the partisan cable networks breathlessly discuss what will happen in the midterm elections in November, there is much talk about how Americans are angry and, as a result, the Republicans are set for major gains in Congress. But the connection between these two assertions -- Americans' dissatisfaction and GOP success -- strikes me as incredibly lazy, both by the media and the voters. 

Nowhere is this disconnect more clear than in the financial regulation battle, which finally concluded with a bill passing the Senate yesterday.

Americans have every right to be angry. Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months (hopefully, it's finally been contained). Islamic extremists seek to kill Americans. We have such a muddy immigration situation, that, no matter which side of the ideological fence you sit on (pun intended), you can't be happy with the way things currently operate.

But the main point of anger is the economy. The official unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent (with millions more not counted because they've given up on looking for a job). People are concerned about their ability to pay their bills and see an unfair system that rewards Wall Street's reckless risks while punishing middle class workers.

But if Americans want to assess blame for these woes, and if they want to choose who should help get us out of these messes, they have an obligation in a democracy to make an effort to really look at the issues before making a decision. And the media, likewise, has an obligation to sort through these complicated issues more carefully.

If the Republican campaign message for 2010 was something like, "Yes, we know that we caused all these problems in the Bush years, but we've learned our lesson, and now we are offering these new ideas to fix things in the future," I would understand (if not agree with) the equating of the problems with Republican gains. But that's not what the Republicans are offering. Rather, the GOP campaign message for 2010 is essentially the same message as the Bush years, only more militant (and more wacky, thanks to the Angle-Paul tea party influence). Their pitch is built around deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and less government, the very things that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Republican congressional record for the Obama years consists of opposing any initiative the president offered (in an effort to make him look ineffectual), even if he proposed something the GOP itself had supported earlier, and to offer as solutions the same tired policies from the Bush years (tax cuts, even if they add to the deficit, as Sen. Jon Kyl suggested). That shouldn't be a winning election argument. But with incendiary rhetoric and right-wing-propaganda-machine-fueled lies taking center stage, the focus for the midterms hasn't been on the facts (how we got here and what the two parties have offered since). 

In fact, the Republicans have been at the heart of the causes of these problems, and they have offered little other than the same policies as solutions.

Which brings us back to financial regulation, an issue directly tied to the current economic problems. We did not magically morph from prosperity to recession. Rather, the current recession and massive job loss began with the near collapse of the financial system in 2008. Wall Street played a win-lose game (they won no matter what, but we all lost) with risky financial instruments. The housing market collapsed under the weight of subprime mortgages. So the deregulation trumpeted by Republicans caused this mess, and yet the party still touts deregulation. 

Certainly, Americans should be angry. And it would seem obvious that action was needed. Nevertheless, all but three Republicans in the Senate didn't think so. Given a choice of standing with the banks or the American people, the Republicans announced their allegiance loud and clear: It is the party of the financial institutions. 

So what is the Republican solution to our economic woes? Based on the actions of their leaders, it seems to be to blame the victims, cut taxes and protect the banks. Not only have Republicans opposed extending unemployment benefits, they have tried to blame the unemployed for their plight, particularly cruel since it was their policies that put them out of work in the first place. Arthur Delaney pointed out two examples in HuffPost last week: Sen. John Kyl said unemployment benefits provide a disincentive for the unemployed to seek work, and Sen. Judd Gregg claimed that unemployment insurance encourages the unemployed to stay out of work. (Again, Kyl won't support adding to the deficit for unemployment insurance, but he is fine with doing so for tax cuts for the wealthy.) 

Republicans have used increasing government debt as a pro-GOP argument. Generally, it is, of course, better for the government not to run large deficits. But the Republican argument ignores history and is overly simplistic. After all, Bill Clinton handed a surplus to George W. Bush, who proceeded to leave Obama with a gaping deficit. Republicans were happy to run up debt in the 2000s on tax cuts for the rich and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which were paid for. But now that the tens of millions of Americans face unemployment, these same GOP leaders complain about the deficit and say we can't afford any programs to help. How is it that we could afford to spend when it was for tax cuts (and still can, according to Kyl), but not to help those hurt by the Republican-policy-induced recession? 

Two polls released on Tuesday showed that Americans care more about unemployment than the deficit. Which party is more concerned with each of those issues? So why should the anger translate to GOP votes? It shouldn't. 

In general, Republican policies precipitated the recession, and the party's solutions are to offer more of the same. And when it came to deciding who to stand up for, the Republicans attacked the unemployed and stood with the banks. Americans' anger is legitimate, but directing that anger by giving power back to the GOP is misplaced. The connection makes no sense. 

(You could run the same arguments for the oil disaster, immigration and terrorism, showing the Republican culpability and the lack of new solutions offered by the GOP to address the problems.)

I harbor no illusions that Obama and the Democratic Congress are above critique. But I'm saddened that there seems to be no recognition that most of the messes we find ourselves in were created, by and large, by the policies instituted by Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, and that the Republicans are offering those very same policies as the solution in the current campaign. It seems to me handing the reins back to the people who created the problems in the first place (and, more importantly, are only offering more of the same) is a horrible way to respond to the challenges. I'm further saddened that GOP strategy of obstructing and lying, putting rhetoric in front of facts, seems to be working.

You would think that with an oil disaster ravaging his state's already hurting economy, Sen. David Vitter would have better things to do than vote against financial reform and endorse bogus "birther" lawsuits against the president. But this is the essence of the Republican party in 2010."

Thank you, Mr. Bard.

Through the Megaphone-

Hey Progressives, weren't you listening?
As President Obama's decision about America's continued involvement in Afghanistan became increasingly imminent, I have heard many angry and angst-filled progressives complaining  on the radio and on television about the prospect of the president sending more troops to Afghanistan. Even Keith Olberman sternly pontificated.  As anticipation of the decision increased, many of these people act as if a decision to increase troops would be a betrayal of their vote. I find this attitude interesting because throughout his campaign, President Obama consistently stated that he would increase the troops in Afghanistan. On August 1, 2007,in Washington, D.C., then-Senator Obama made the following remarks:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq."

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations."

Obama made similar remarks on September 12, 2007 in Clinton, Iowa:

"Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan."

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

On August 19, 2008, Obama said the following in a speech at the VFW National Convention in Orlando, Florida:

"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act.


"Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan."


"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban."

Not only was President Obama on the record as being in support of sending more troops to Afghanistan for several years before his election, he campaigned on it. If he announces that he is going to send additional troops as is widely speculated, he is doing exactly what the he told us he would do. So, I don't understand this feeling of surprise and betrayal in the progressive community. Did they not listen to his speeches? Did they misunderstand? Did they purposely ignore it? Did they think that he did not mean what he said?

The Impact of Race on Today's Political Climate

Carter and Obama are both right

This past week, former President Carter told NBC news, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man . . . racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."   

I applaud former President Carter's  "calling out" of these racists.  I made the same observation myself in my September 7th entry about the hysteria over President Obama's address to the nation's school children  when I wrote, "This is a pure and very sad case of racism. These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president. They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children."

In an interview with CNN's John King, to be broadcast on Sunday, President Obama said that he assumes some people don’t like him because of his race but said it is not the “overriding issue.” He said the intense public reaction reflects a long-standing debate about the role of government, which gets more fierce “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”

The resulting headlines stating that Obama rejects Carter's statement, were wrong.  The Republicans  oppose health care reform and most of the other changes that Obama has proposed.  They are angry that they lost the election.  They will do anything to regain their power.  So, as they did with the Christian right and the issues of abortion and homosexuality in prior elections, they are now stoking the pent up racism of Americans who resent having a black man as our president.  Then, they feed one lie after another to these people, via the internet and people like Glenn "Joe McCarthy" Beck and Rush Limbaugh, to create angry mobs at town hall meetings and giant temper-tantrums in Washington D.C. This keeps negative Obama stories in the media and drags down his approval ratings.

Thus, Obama and Carter were both correct in their statements.

A Question of Balance

Baucus and Grassley accept millions from health care and insurance interests

    As Senator Max Baucus claims that he is working on a health care bill with his bipartisan panel, I thought that it would be a good time to review his connections to health care and insurance companies.  In a June 14, 2009 article in the Montana Standard, Mike Dennison summarized data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a nonprofit group that tracks campaign donations.  Mr. Dennison's summary, in pertinent part,  is as follows: 

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus, D-Mont., and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.
. . . . .

From 2003-2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health-care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health-products, $851,000 from health professionals; $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health-service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance-sector money includes donations from all types of insurance-company interests, including health insurance.

Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

Mr. Dennison also pointed out that Senator Charles Grassley received 23.5%  of his total donations from health and insurance interests, $2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds.

By contrast, the late great Senator Edward M. Kennedy received  only 7.5 % of his donations from such interests.  Also, President Barack Obama received only 2.5% from health care interests and 0.3% from insurance interests during his presidential campaign.

So, when faced with the choice of a plan with an effective pubic option supported by President Obama and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy or a plan without an effective public option, if any, written by Senators Baucus and Grassley, which plan is most likely to help all Americans?   Hmmm....
*Thanks to Patti for all the research.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

At various points in the past month and a half, I was sure that the public option was dead, or alive,  depending on which message the White House was putting out at the time.  With all of the trial balloons and the clarifications issued the next day, it was a real roller-coaster.   The day of Obama's speech, I read a dozen different stories about what the president was going to say about the public option that night.  Each with a source, each claiming to know, each with a different prognostication.  After President Obama's speech on Wednesday night, I felt renewed hope.  Even though the President gave himself wiggle room, I believed that unless the Republicans could come up with a constructive and workable method of accomplishing the goals set forth that night, the public option was in.  And, given the fact that the Republicans had no intention of coming up with such a solution, we would have an effective  public option.  

Then, it started.  First, David Axelrod told Rachel Maddow in an interview immediately after the speech that he thought there would be some sort of public option in the bill, but he did not know whether there would be a trigger mechanism.  Then, on Friday, I read reports that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were "softening" on requiring a public option in the President's new health plan. Only four days after the President's speech, a New York Times analysis suggested, that the idea of a public option "appears to be dying, a victim of an ineffectual White House strategy, the president’s failure to argue passionately for the 'public option' and all-out opposition by the insurance industry and much of the health care industry."  Over the weekend, I have read or heard several accounts of the White House, the Congressional leadership or the Democrats "caving" on the public option.  Some indicated that this meant no public option. Some indicated that there was a new receptiveness to a trigger mechanism.  An Associated Press report by Charles Babington, acknowledged the hurdles that the public option faces, but did not say or imply that anyone was caving or that a trigger-less public option is dead.  This article, as do many, speaks of the President's appearance this evening on 60 Minutes and the cross country trips that the President is making to press his case.

So who do we believe?  Should we believe any press accounts?  Or, is this all just case of speculation written to sound authoritative?  I don't know.  Perhaps that is because the battle has not yet ended.

Teach Your Children

In 1991, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren across the nation.  The speech  was intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students'  as well as parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face."  The White house  sent letters to schools across the nation encouraging the schools to allow students to listen to the speech.  The Education Department arranged for live television and radio coverage.  Washington Post, October 2, 2001. 

Simon Maloy at Media Matters points out that George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website for teachers to use to help their students understand the "freedom timeline" for the Iraq war and encouraged them to "explore the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney."

In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed schoolchildren in a speech that was broadcast live and rerun by C-Span.  The Instructional Television Network fed the program to schools nationwide on three different days.  At one point in the broadcast,  Reagan used the occasion to speak in favor of his tax cuts. 

Following the tradition, President Obama will give a speech to American schoolchildren on the first day of school, in which he will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their own learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."  U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

So why, pray tell, did Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, lash out at President Obama for his plans to give a speech to the nation's school children about the importance of working hard in school?  Why would he accuse the president of trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda?"  Why would he call  President Obama's planned speech an  "an invasive abuse of power?"  Why all this coming from Mr. Greer, who, himself, went into classrooms and talked about Republican values?  Why are conservative Republicans all over the country condemning and spouting off conspiracy theories about the speech, which they haven't even read?

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress astutely concluded, "Probably the biggest moral of the story is that the contemporary conservative movement is run by crazy people with no scruples, who’ll turn anything into a pretext to level wild accusations. "

For this to to cause so much hysteria from the right, I can't help but conclude that if Obama was a white male president, the reaction would not be so hateful and venomous.  In fact, there would be no opposition.  This is a pure and very sad case of racism.  These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president.  They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children.

It  sickens me.

VINDICATION!

Hey! I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist in need of psychological help after all!

Well, maybe I am, a little. But with Tom Ridge's recent revelations about the Bush administration issuing terror warnings to strike fear in the public in order to manipulate the election, I feel so vindicated. I just want to jump up and down, pointing, and shout, "I told you so! I told you so! I told you so!" But, that would be immature of me and besides, I was certainly not the only one saying that the Bush administration was putting out phony terror alerts for political gain. Right-wing media called us paranoid, conspiracy theorists and unbalanced for voicing such an opinion. Shall we review?

In the year leading up to the election, there were no less than 16 warnings/alerts issued by the government. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but frankly, I'm exhausted and need to post this before it goes on longer and I get totally disgusted.

December 4, 2003-Foxnews.com reports that the FBI warns that terrorists could be developing plans to hijack airplanes to use as weapons.

December 13, 2003-FBI warns that terrorist operatives may rely on almanacs to assist with target selection and pre-operational plannings and suggests the possibility of attacks against the United States by early 2004 that could rival the terrorist attack of September 11 in scope and impact.

March 4, 2004-Fox News obtains FBI bulletin that terrorists may use pen guns containing poisonous chemicals and biological toxins.

April 2, 2004-FBI warns that terrorists might attempt to slip into the U.S. using cultural, arts or sports visas.

May 20, 2004-FBI issues a bulletin advising police to be on the lookout for suicide bombers attempting to strike inside the U.S. Warned to look for people wearing bulky Jackets on warm days, smell of chemicals, trailing wires from jackets, bombers disguised as pregnant women or in stolen military, police, or firefighters garb.

May 26, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department issue a joint statement that "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States during the period leading up to the November elections. The New York Times subsequently reports that "Some federal officials and terrorism experts questioned the credibility and the timing of the announcement, noting that much of Mr. Ashcroft's information had been widely disseminated for months." According to the New York Times,Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, was not with Mr. Ashcroft for the news conference and suggested that the announcement might have averted required consultation between agencies on domestic threats . . . Late Friday, apparently in an effort to counter the perception of a split, Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Ridge put out a joint statement saying that 'we are working together' to deter terrorist attacks.

May 28, 2004-The FBI issues an urgent bulletin to several cities warning of a terrorist attack within 24 hours. According to the New York Times, the FBI rescinds the alert hours later because the intelligence proves unfounded, officials said.

June 14, 2004- Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, has been threatened by Al Qaeda bomber, stating dramatically, "The American heartland was targeted for death and destruction." It is subsequently revealed that the suspect to whom Ashcroft referred had been in custody for seven months at the time of the announcement and that there was nothing in the indictment about a shopping mall.The charges against him made no mention of a shopping mall.

June 25, 2004-The FBI issues a warning to be on the lookout for booby-trapped floating material in and around the nation's marinas, warning they could contain explosives, explaining that plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and buoys could be rigged to blow up on contact. On June 27, 2004, a homeland security official tells CNN that there is "no intelligence terrorists are planning to or want to do this."

July 6, 2004-Senator John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his running mate, monopolizing most of the media attention.

July 8, 2004-Tom Ridge announces that, "Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." There was no such plot.

July 12, 2004-Deforest B. Soaries Jr., the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

July 16, 2004-The FBI warns local authorities that the al- Qaida terror network may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract notice as they carry out attacks in the United States and specifically, that Al-Qaida wants operatives who have American citizenship or legal residency status.

July 29, 2004-The Democratic Party nominates Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards as their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively. Again, the media attention focuses on the Democratic ticket. 

August 1, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange based on very out-of-date evidence..

August 7, 2004-The FBI issues a pair of warnings to 18,000 police agencies nationwide that al-Qaida could try launching attacks in the United States by packing explosives into rental limos or helicopters, which could help terrorists sneak near targeted buildings.

September 8, 2004-Vice President Dick Cheney tells a town hall audience in Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday that there will be an increased risk of terrorist attacks if Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is elected president.

September 22, 2004-A report from a joint CIA-FBI agency called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. describes a scenario whereby Al Qaeda would use “weapons of mass destruction to launch multiple simultaneous attacks on the United States and overwhelm the US government.”

The weekend before the November 2004 Presidential election- Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft push Ridge to raise the color-coded warning for what Ridge believed were political reasons. In his new book, Ridge writes, "An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government" after Osama bin Laden released a pre-election message critical of President George W. Bush, and we weren't seeing any additional intelligence that justified it. In fact, we were incredulous... I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'" This incident prompted Ridge to resign shortly after Bush was re-elected.

Even though I do feel vindicated, it still scares the crap out of me that the top echelons of the government conspired to manipulate the public in order to stay in power. It is equally scary that the general public was so gullible and that these people vote. The reluctance of the Obama administration to launch a full scale investigation of this matter seemingly assures that these former government officials got away with their abuse of power.

Obsessed

It must seem that I am obsessed about health care reform and the public option. At this time, I may be. But, the sleazy manipulation of the public by the Republicans and the health care industry, the curiously naive handling of the issue by the Obama administration and the grave necessity for serious health care reform with a public option have captured and monopolized my attention.

I do not understand how or why the Obama Administration has allowed the process to get so out of control. I knew that the Republicans would never agree to a public option or effective and meaningful health care reform. (See my July 29 and July 31 blog entries.) It was so clear that any such efforts would be futile and that the Republicans were being manipulative. If I could see that so clearly, why didn't President Obama see it? (By the way, I am dropping off my resume for the position of resident pundit at the White House this afternoon.) And, after all that has transpired since the last days of July, why is he still talking about a bipartisan agreement? Why is he still acting as if Grassley is negotiating in good faith? It really makes the president appear naive and weak. Then, there is spineless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Well, he just needs to be replaced. Frankly, I think that Reid and the White House should take a page out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's book. She is the only one who seems to have control of her troops.

More Republican fear-mongering

A New York reader called my attention to a very funny posting at the Wonkette regarding the most recent Republican dirty tricks campaign to convince the public that the Obama White House is compiling an Enemies List of those spreading disinformation about the health insurance reform:

(T)his notion of the “enemies list” has become the hot new well-funded wingnut con-job from Republican operatives over the last 24 hours. * * * This stems from the Democrats’ recent pushback against the anti-health care reform movement’s operation to (a) shout violent nonsense at town hall meetings and (b) spread lies to America’s old people about how the government will first “take over their Medicare” and then murder each of them, for pleasure, well before that first sniffle becomes a full-blown cold or pancreatic cancer.

Emphasis added.

Seriously, these Republican dirty tricks operatives are dishonest, desperate, dangerous people. They are paid by the health insurance industry to stop President Obama's efforts to reform health care/health insurance. The facts do not support their position (which is simply, "no"). So, as they always do, the Republicans started cooking up lies and embarked on a campaign of disinformation and fearmongering. They will stop at nothing.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS?

It appears, today at least, that the Senate DEMOCRATS have all but killed the prospect of a health care reform bill with a strong (if any) public option. All in the name "bipartisanship." I have news for them: there is no hope of getting the Republicans to sign on to any health care reform legislation that is meaningful and effective for the middle and lower working classes.

I do not believe for a minute that the Senate Democrats truly believe they will attain a bipartisan agreement on meaningful and effective health care reform. It is quite obvious that such a thing is hopeless, given the fact that the Republicans have two intertwined goals:

1) to "break" President Obama -"If we are able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and

2) to regain control of Congress in 2010- "We can stall it. And that's going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election;" and "If he is unsuccessful, which I anticipate and will predict he is, on getting a vole prior to the August recess, then I would say there's no way in the world they're going to get this done this year. And next year would not be any easier." Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK.

So, why are the Senate Democrats being such obstructionists to REAL health care reform?? Why are they, of all people, playing into the hands of the Republicans? Is it because Senator Harry Reid is a spineless, ineffective majority leader? Are these Senators too indebted to the pharmacy and health insurance lobbies?

"birthers?" Or "LUNATIC FRINGE?"

Perhaps "googly-eyed."

Enough said.