Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost had a fit when she wanted to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue by returning to previously established borders. That didn’t work. As I mentioned, she took North Korea by storm and her husband had to fly at his own expense to correct the misunderstandings there. Clinton, still in charge of foreign affairs, with no presidential micro-management, gave millions to our former allies in Pakistan. As I see it, they simply took the money and ran. Then she gave them some more. In 2008, Pakistan was still an ally; now, under Obama, Pakistan is a threat.
Yes he was unable to move Congress in any direction, owing to an absolute Republican policy of obstructionism. Yes they are to be criticized far more than he. The years to come will clearly be a period of corporate dominance. Transparency and accountability, the big promises of 2008, are as opaque as wet mud. Yet, the Democratic insider trading scandals are something we clearly are not supposed to mention.
Obama is working closely with Russian Vladimir Putin, but their meetings are all very hush-hush. And in fact the military in Russia has considered preemptively striking a main thrust of the Obama foreign policy, the new and better missile shield, proposed for 2015.
Obama seemed to me to have a little birther in him, but people being roasted can say just about anything. And I really doubt all that Obama is gay stuff.
So as we see, there are some questions. A vote for Romney is a vote for corporate rule, a step beyond the direction of the Bush/Halliburton administration. And a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Hillary Clinton!
Photos courtesy of Daily Mail and The Examiner.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
That's what the conservatives don't get - just as they'll vote for Romney only because he's the best they can get right now, we'll vote for Obama only because he's the best we can get (since Hillary's not running). Obama's done some great things despite epic obstructionism (of a degree not seen since the Civil War), but he's also done some things which most liberals such as myself really, really don't like.
To be fair, some of what he did was due to the sausage-making that is our small-d democratic government process...but some of it wasn't.
Another thing the conservatives don't get is that Obama's the most fiscally-conservative president since Eisenhower...and if we take into consideration the 90% top marginal tax rate of the Eisenhower administration, Obama's the most fiscally-conservative president since Herbert Hoover.
But of course conservatives don't want to hear that since Obama is (1) not a Republican, (2) has a funny name, and (3) (a mortal sin in the eyes of so many racists who happen to be in the Republican party (and the Republicans who enable them by tolerating them)) not white.
2 - Dan(Miller)
A truly great bit of satire! Congratulations. May the force be with you!
3 - Dr Dreadful
Shortcomings? I have heard no mention of shortcomings whatever in Obama's entire four-year term of office. Are there any to mention?
On a related note, I've heard that the late President Nixon may, possibly (and I do stress that these are just rumours) have done some unethical things involving surveillance. Dare we look into that at all?
4 - Igor
I have a hard time understanding the criticisms of Hillary Clinton since she seems to have done a darn good job in the foreign arena. Much better than Condoleesa Rice, for example.
Clinton has been much better than I expected her to be.
5 - Pam Messingham
John-Nice. Thanks. Our Military have been immune to personal responsibility for a long time. Anything goes. Not that I don't respect them for their fight.
Of course, college kids go, there aren't any jobs for them. There's a great sign on bonus.
#1 Glenn, I hear rumor that Obama may change running mates to Hilary. I hope she doesn't accept...but runs in 2016.
#3 Dread, but he was impeached for them.
#4 Hilary is awesome. She should have been president, but the DNC wasn't going to stand for that...just like the GOP won't acknowledge Ron Paul.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Pam -
It's not the military that's the problem - it's the military-industrial complex. Even generals have come forward saying to cut the military's budget, but the Right refuses to do so.
That, and contrary to popular belief, people in the military are held to a MUCH higher standard of personal responsibility than are those in the civilian (and especially the corporate) world, as any retired military like myself can attest. You hear all about what we do wrong, all about how this or that soldier, sailor, or Marine got away with doing something bad...but we've got what, just under two million or so on active duty, most of whom are under the age of 23? Take ANY like sample of people of the same age in the civilian world - heck, even without the age restrictions - and compare the crime rates, and you'll find just out just how well-behaved our military is, and just how high our standards really are.
The problem's not the military - it's the politicians who insist on Thou Shalt Not Decrease Military Funding (and the defense industry contractors who fund their campaigns).
7 - John Lake
It's anathema in this county to criticize the current Secretary of State. That applies to amateurs like myself and the media as well. She does travel a lot. Add to that that I can't find support for my efforts to blame Hillary for the Chaos in Pakistan, and there's not much left. But Bibi had a cow, and Kim had a good laugh, and I don't see any signs of glowing success.
In addition, the fact that President Clinton has been loose-cannon one in a bevvy of loose cannons, and the thing begins to take shape.
I never intended to be Sect. Clinton's worst critic, but I call them as I see them. Hope I'm not wrong...
8 - El Bicho
"I can't find support for my efforts to blame Hillary for the Chaos in Pakistan"
Probably because it's inaccurate and ridiculous
9 - Cindy
It's not the military that's the problem - it's the military-industrial complex.
It's all three the military, the military-industrial complex, and the fans who support them.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
Whatever. The military doesn't get a dime unless Congress authorizes it, and I can show you examples of how the military did NOT want the newest whiz-bang weaponry, but it was quite literally forced on them by congressmen who wanted to support jobs in their respective districts.
If you want to cut defense spending, first you have to get corporate money out of politics.
11 - John Lake
The military/Industrial complex might be a source of difficulty in the economy, or in the moral complexities of our leading Generals and politicians. The new developing use of drones might be attributed to the complex, but there is good and bad in everything. Maybe the problem is in our ongoing effort to force our principles on nations with differing views. Ron Paul might agree.
Soldiers are intentionally coarsened in training to see the “enemy” as something less than human. That is part of preparing for battle and intervention. The ongoing problems in the military may be exacerbated by unjust pointless wars, and by the necessary deployment of heavily armed soldiers in civilian regions of cities and towns. Our military in general is superb, but the isolated cased do build up. Maybe some need less praise, and more discipline.
Our relations with Pakistan have deteriorated. Our reasons for being in Afghanistan have never been clear. We should have learned that if we “democratize” a nation today, it will revert tomorrow.
Hillary’s plan for Syria, the NATO vote having been blocked by Russia and China, was her “Friends of Syria” humanitarian program. That has gone nowhere, and the dialogue with Russia and China has failed.
A congress that wastes four years, keeping people out of work and out of their homes is an indication of decreased patriotism, and motivation by politics and profiteering. The same thinking might go into our preparation for some wars and invasions, and some interventions. Maybe we should reconsider our role in the world.
12 - Igor
Glenn, indeed, the military has become a pawn for congressmen to bring expensive projects to their districts. The unholy alliance between congressmen, corporate bribers and military deadbeats will probably destroy our economy and our country.
13 - John Lake
Here are some relevant words from Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961 in which he warns the nation of the threat inherent in the necessary vast military-industrial complex.
…Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence --- economic, political, even spiritual --- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I placed a copy of the entire speech at Blogger.
14 - Arch Conservative
More proof of what a world class scumbag Barack Obama is: The Obama Event Registry.
15 - John Lake
Re:14 Instead of a wedding present, donate to the Obama campaign. Why didn't I think of that?
16 - baritone
I have no doubt that all of you who find such great fault with Obama and/or Hillary could slip into their shoes as it were and carry out their duties flawlessly as it is apparent that you have the ultimate grasp on just how all that shit should be handled. If the people would just wake up to the reality of your superior brilliance all of the worlds troubles would melt away like a sucked-on Hershey's Kiss. Ah yes... if only...
What is it they say about arm chair quarterbacks?
17 - zingzing
i'm sure archie thinks sucking corporate dick and then being beholden to their interests is much less scumbaggy than getting ordinary people to donate. oh, what a weird, wild world is is.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Of course Archie thinks it's a great idea for ONE MAN to be legally able to spend $100M or more (more than $1 per vote) to influence the election.
So much for people being equal to each other - in Archie's world equality is measured in dollars.
19 - Igor
I'm upset at Obama for this darn "Trans-Pacific Partnership" treaty that he's trying to setup. It's like some other "Free Trade Agreements" (FTAs), like NAFTA, that we're already involved in, and which provide little or no advantage to US citizens, while threatening our national sovereignty.
For example, under TPP any American law that any corporation doesn't like can be brought up in a special "Corporate Tribunal" of 3 lawyers (one of whom is from the complaining corp!) and be nullified!
In late May, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, introduced new legislation that would require the White House to share trade documents with all members of Congress and their qualified staff. The move was largely a symbolic act of protest against the secrecy the White House has imposed on the new trade deal: TPP
The agency responsible for trade negotiations, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, had denied Wydens office access to any of the draft documents involved. The general public and most nonprofit organizations have no access to the documents, although a number of corporate officials can see them.
"Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to regulate foreign commerce in order to ensure that such laws and policies take into consideration all the interests of the people rather than those of the select few. Congress has delegated certain powers to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), but remains subject to Congressional oversight. The USTR is required to consult wth the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and is supposed to regularly consult with the House and Senate Leadership Offices. In addition, under amendments to the Trade Act enacted by Congress in 2002, the USTR is required to consult with members of the Congressional Oversight Group."
cf: TPP
Business to Business
“We had almost given up on the trade ministers and negotiators remembering they are accountable to their citizens, not to the corporate lobbyists who are driving the TPPA,” said Dr Jane Kelsey, a staunch critic of the agreement.
“A deal made behind closed doors, which would lock governments into the failed neoliberal model for the next century, is untenable in a democracy, but those concerns seemed to fall on deaf ears”.
Be Breitbart
In this instance TPP doesn't stand for Tea Party Patriots but rather Trans-Pacific Partnership or as its its critics call it Taking Peoples Power. On the surface TPP appears to be an innocuous trade treaty between nine Pacific Rim countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States but the secrecy surrounding the negotiation is astounding. The panel's drafts are classified and unavailable to the very senators who will vote on the treaty as it will probably brought up in a lame duck session with no time for anyone to read the fine print. More remarkable than the secrecy is the openness to trade groups. Business executives can access from the web data deemed too dangerous to share with the Senate.
Naturally a trade bill contains provisions concerning intellectual property and here the trouble begins. A cynic might argue that TPP is the international version of Sopa and its bastard step brother Protect IP. Supporters of TPP include the usual list of suspects, the Obama administration, the motion picture industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Chris Dodd, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America enjoys access to negotiating texts that he could not view as a senator. Thirty academics sent a letter to Ambassador Kirk expressing their concern over the lack of transparency. Kirk responded immediately “You may be surprised to know that USTR has conducted the most active outreach to all stakeholders relative to the TPP than in any [free trade agreement] previously, including the proposed disciplines on intellectual property.”
The academics replied; “USTR’s consultation process consists of choosing with whom to share its international legislative proposals and leaving the rest of the country in the dark until the deal is done,”
Naturally all this secrecy invites speculation and leaks have been scarce but critics claim and the USTR has yet to deny that the treaty would;
20 - Dan(Miller)
In re # 19. There's no problem. President Obama can simply claim executive privilege unless he thinks that not asserting it will help him.
21 - Igor
Perhaps Obama has simply acceded to the political efficacy of methods used by the late unlamented Bush administration. Next, he may hire Karl Rove to go on Sunday morning "Face The Nation" to proclaim the wonderfulness of the "Unitary Executive".
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan #20 -
Yep, just like Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications.
But since it's Obama (concerning a program that loosely based on two similar programs conducted under Dubya), well, THAT's unforgivable, huh?
23 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, re #20 -- Here is an amusing piece by Jon Stewart that you might find interesting if not enjoyable. It was once taken down "at the request of the user" but found its way back to YouTube.