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

The Armenian Genocide

Dear Friends,

As we approach the day of international recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, I continue to be ashamed of the United States for its failure to officially recognize this atrocity as genocide.  There is, of course, the condemnation of Turkey's persistent refusal to acknowledge this terrible part of its history, which is very appropriate.  However, it is the failure of the United States to call this crime against humanity what is was, a genocide of huge proportions that makes me ashamed.

When then Senator Obama was running for the Presidency, he said,

the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable... as President, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

President Obama has never fulfilled that promise. It is outrageous that we have permitted him to break this promise and place the United States in the position of continuing to be a fact denier on the international stage.  

I have decried and made fun of many Republicans because of their refusal to accept evolution and climate change, but this failure by President Obama and the United States is worse than both of those examples.  Please join me in urging President Obama to take advantage of this anniversary of the Armenian Genocide to fulfill his promise and include the United States among the nations of the world who recognize the Armenian Genocide.  You can contact him here.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

When hedging just isn't enough.

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton has been very busy during the first few days of her formal campaign to become President.  As I wrote here, much of what she has said has been very encouraging to me as a liberal.  Now she has made a move that gives me more hope.  She hired Gary Gensler as the chief financial officer for her campaign.

Mr. Gensler is a former chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a former Goldman Sachs banker.  While that sounds like the typical revolving door story between the government and Wall Street.  Mr. Gensler is seen by many as a tough regulator who frequently clashed with Tim Geitner and Larry Summers (two terrible former members of the Obama administration).  The fact that he is in the good graces of Hillary Clinton is a very good sign.  Here is one conclusion from an article on Vox (here):

This is, for Wall Street skeptics, a huge deal: Gensler is the kind of regulator a President Elizabeth Warren would be expected to pick, not a President Clinton. But if Clinton is going to pick the kinds of regulators Warren was going to pick, then the difference between them isn't as large as many thought.

Unfortunately, Secretary Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of hedging.  When Secretary Clinton was First Lady, she wholeheartedly supported NAFTA.  When she ran for President in 2008 both she and then Senator Barack Obama were anti-trade agreement.  Once Senator Obama became President Obama and Senator Clinton became Secretary of State Clinton, they both changed their tunes and became strong advocates for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Her support for the TPP is now posing some problems for her as she seeks to woo liberal voters.

The International Business Times has a good article addressing Secretary Clinton's dilemma and current hedging on the TPP (here).   The article quotes an aide to Secretary Clinton as saying:

She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas.

The article goes on to quote an opponent of the TPP who voices the exact concern that I have:

“We’re glad that Secretary Clinton is voicing concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Murshed Zaheed, deputy political director at Credo. “But to stop secret trade deals like the TPP,  Secretary Clinton must speak out forcefully against Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority now while the debate is playing out in Congress.”

This case is clearly one where hedging is not enough.  Hillary Clinton must come out strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and fast track for it.  Senator Bernie Sanders has urged Secretary Clinton to do so.  We should all do the same.  You can email her at website@hillaryclinton.com.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal