President Obama has NO Credibility

Dear Friends,

Several items in the news recently reminded me why I get so cynical about politics and politicians.  I have no expectations for the Republicans to be thoughtful, logical, rational, transparent, intellectually honest or any other appropriate trait.  Yet, despite my cynicism, I still expect Democrats to have all of those traits.  Unfortunately, I am constantly disappointed.  Here are a few recent examples.

Armenian Genocide
As I wrote a few days ago here, then Senator Obama, when he was running for the Presidency, promised to officially call the Armenian Genocide, a genocide because it was.  Today is the day the world marks the 100th anniversary of that genocide and President Obama has once again refused to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide.  There is, of course, no question that it was a genocide.  It is important to call the Armenian Genocide by its proper name because the world must acknowledge these events in order to prevent them in the future.  By denying history, President Obama is enabling future generations to deny future genocides.  In my view one cannot deny history and still retain credibility.

Drone Strikes
The entire world knows that the United States uses drones to spy and kill people in a wide range of countries, yet for a long time President Obama refused to officially acknowledge them.  Then he did acknowledge them but stated that no drone strikes would be authorized without "near-certainty that no civilians would be killed or injured."  When it became obvious that the United States was not following that standard in some locations, the Obama Administration used a technicality of international law to lower that standard.  Here is the current state of affairs from The New York Times reporting (here):

Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.

An analysis in The Guardian in November 2014 (here) found that attempts to kill 41 men by drone strikes resulted in the killing of 1,147 civilians.

President Obama has promised more transparency about the drone program and the number of civilian casualties, but has failed repeatedly to actually be more transparent.  Here is some more from The New York Times article cited above.

But over the Obama presidency, it has become harder for journalists to obtain information from the government on the results of particular strikes. And Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has fought in court for years to keep secret the legal opinions justifying strikes.

The killing in an American drone attack earlier this year of an American and Italian hostages held by Qaeda has brought this terrible program back into the attention of Americans.  The United States did not know these two hostages were in the building at any time during the observation of the site.  In fact, the United States did not know who was in the building.  The order to assassinate the people in the building was given because they appeared to be terrorists based on observations of their non-terrorist activities and their phone calls.  

The President's apology for killing the two hostages was, I am sure, heartfelt, but he is the one authorizing a program that kills people who are targeted even though we do not know who they are and in the process we kill many innocent civilians, including children.  Why the President only apologizes when he kills innocent Americans and Europeans will be the subject of a future post.

The President has lost all credibility when it comes to being transparent and honest about how and why our government is assassinating people, including completely innocent civilians.  He says trust me we are really only killing the bad guys, but we all know that is not the case.  One cannot deny reality and still retain credibility.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

The President continues to insist that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be great for middle-class and working Americans.  This week he tried to take Senator Warren to task for her opposition to fast track authority for TPP.  He said that he welcomed a debate based on the facts.  Unfortunately, he is preventing us from knowing the facts.  Here are two tweets by Senator Warren that say it all:

The Obama Admin says I'm wrong - we shouldn't worry about TPP. So why can’t the American people read the deal?
When giant corporations see the TPP deal and; the American people don't, we all lose.

President Obama says trust me I wouldn't do this agreement if I didn't think it was good for Americans, but he lets big business be actively involved in the negotiations and prevents the rest of America from seeing what is being negotiated.  He says he wants a debate on the facts, but then prevents the facts from being known.

One cannot retain any credibility by demanding a debate on the facts and then not making the facts public.

I will not continue even though I have not touched on President Obama's lack of honesty and transparency about NSA spying or the fact that he refuses to prosecute war criminals but will prosecute the whistle blowers that disclose the war crimes.  Unfortunately, President Obama gives us no reason to believe what he says as he has lost all credibility.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Charlie Hebdo, Hatred, Disrespect and Loss of Community

Dear Friends,

The news here in France is all about the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo.  In Villefranche-sur-mer, where I am, a small town far from Paris, a special ceremony to greet the mayor has been cancelled and all the townspeople are being encouraged to go to Nice for a silent vigil tomorrow.  There are flyers and signs everywhere in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, the victims and their families.  They all read something like "Nous sommes tous Charlie." It is the worst terrorist attack on French mainland soil for 50 years.  I cannot help but feel the pain that the French are feeling.

Unfortunately, I also cannot help but think that those within France, the United States and other places that thrive on and encourage fear, hatred and disrespect play a role in the breakdown of civility which can lead to this type of attack.  These attacks are not attacks on free speech. They are part of a larger war by fundamentalists and extremists who are the subject of hatred, discrimination and disenfranchisement, none of which justify the actions but certainly explain why radicalisation occurs.

The far right in France, personified by the Front National, its most popular far right party that polled around 25% in the last elections in which the turnout was very low, has been fanning anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and anti-Semitic sentiments which has lead to a recent increase in Islamophobic and anti-Semitic attacks across France.  The other political parties are excluding the Front National from the idea of French unity after the attack and apparently did not issue an invitation to the FN to a public rally to show unity in the face of the Charlie Hebbo terrorist attack.  There is a significant feeling in France that it is the disenfranchisement of the immigrants, caused by the fear and hatred encouraged by the NF,  that has made it easy to radicalise people.

Even though the NF has been excluded, there is an incredible sense of solidarity in France in the aftermath of these attacks and the subsequent hostage situations that have just been resolved.  I only hope that in the days ahead, this unity is not squandered as it was in the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

Of course France is not the only country in which the far right relies on fear and hatred of those that are "others".  The far right in the United States does exactly the same thing.  A significant part of the Republican party does everything it can to make people afraid and particularly afraid of anybody that is not a "white American".  This approach is clear in such things such as immigration, but it is just as present in the economic discussions when the "others" are the poor and those who receive government assistance, a majority of which are non-white.

Republican candidates for President have dropped any pretence of being "compassionate conservatives".  Uniformly they are opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, they support the repeal of Obamacare, they oppose immigration reform, they are in favour of lower taxes on the rich, they are opposed to any effort to reduce the immoral economic gap between the rich and the poor, they want to suppress the vote of those that are "other", they want to eliminate the economic safety net, and the list goes on and on.

Relying on fear and hatred to obtain and retain power, leads inevitably to a complete lack of respect for those that are "other".  Representative Joe Wilson's shouting of "You lie!!" at President Obama during his State of the Union address, is a comparatively mild example of the disrespect that is engendered by the Republicans and others that stoke fear and hatred of "others".  Unfortunately the examples of public disrespect have been increasing including the recent disrespect by some of the New York City police who have turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio.  There can be no debate that disrespect has become epidemic in recent times, and I believe that the public stoking of fear and hatred is largely responsible for this epidemic.

The fear and hatred stoked disrespect for "others" leads to a lack of outrage when violence is committed against "others".  The incredible overreaction and use of excess force by police when a young black male is involved demonstrates a complete lack of respect for them as individuals and human beings.  If young white males were killed by police at the same rate and under the same circumstances as young black males, the public outrage would put an end to that practice immediately.  The same can be said for the number of innocent civilians being killed by the United States drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.  If the United States were killing that many civilians who were of northern European descent, the outrage would be immediate, intense and incredible.

This lack of respect has lead to a breakdown in the idea of community in the United States, and I am afraid throughout the world.  At the end of the day, it can only be a feeling of true community with all others throughout the world that can put a stop to this senseless violence.  We must remember that we are all human beings, and we must act and react accordingly.  We must not disenfranchise, hate or fear the "others".  We must embrace all, even and perhaps especially those that we disagree with.  If we can truly love and respect each other, the process of radicalisation can be dramatically slowed or maybe even stopped. We are all Charlie.  We are all Eric Garner.  We are all Michael Brown.  We are all Tamir Rice.  We are all the innocent people killed by drone strikes.  We are all each other.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal