Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

We Don't Want Obama to Make Bush's Policies Succeed; We Want New Policies

Posted by Leslie Savan, TheNation.com at 6:15 AM on October 30, 2009.


Obama is better at just about every act of presidenting than Bush was, more graceful, more self-aware. But that's not the point.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get World in your
mailbox!

 

Even without George W. Bush's debut in Fort Worth as a motivational speaker (see Stephen Colbert swoon over the speech here), this past week has been full of reminders of 43. On Wednesday, President Obama walked out onto the North Lawn of the White House to plant a tree where, one year earlier, Bush had tried to plant a Scarlet Oak. Bush's tree "didn't take," so Obama shoveled a few symbolic spadefuls of dirt over the roots of a Linden tree, asked assembled reporters whether it looked nice, and walked back into the Oval Office.

Sometime after midnight, 44 caught a quick helicopter ride out to the Dover Air Base to stand, wind-whipped and slender, as the bodies of 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan were off-loaded from a C-17 in their flag-draped coffins. It was the first time in eight years of war that a President has greeted our returning dead. Obama flashed a neat, palm-down right-hand salute, which cameras recorded matter-of-factly, as if images of respect for the returning dead were an everyday affair.

When Glenn Beck says the Obama presidency is all about "reparations," he's insinuating that the President wants to lavish government goodies on blacks while stealing from whites. But this is how the Obama camp perceives reparations: Obama is indeed going about repairing things his predecessor bungled, it is truly an appalling mess to clean up, and they don't want to hear criticism of how he "holds the mop." Obama is doing his level best, they say, to restore the national honor, and if we give him enough time he will bring the bloom back to American policy.

But Thursday morning was not the first time flag-draped coffins have returned from Afghanistan since Obama took over. How the deaths of these Americans, killed over two days earlier this week, affects his upcoming decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan is what makes his emotional midnight run so significant.

Most speculation in the media suggests that Obama will agree to an increase, though perhaps not as large as the generals want. Obama's appearance on the tarmac -- something his predecessor avoided, apparently for fear of damaging domestic "morale" -- may well be a way of underlining that he does not take this decision lightly. Still, it would seem to suggest that he is going to escalate one of Bush's wars by sending even more troops (Obama has already committed 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, approving that increase last February).

Lord yes, Obama is better at just about every act of presidenting than Bush was, more graceful, more self-aware. But progressives don't want him to just make Bush policies succeed -- we want new policies. Some things Bush did, like drain the Treasury for two ridiculous occupations halfway around the globe, are now completely unsalvageable. Polls show that most Americans already get this truth. It's time to plant new seeds in different ground.

Digg!

Tagged as: afghanistan, barack obama, george w. bush


Word "Canadian" So "Reviled in Some Places" that Visiting Canucks Say They're Americans
An odd turn.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 23, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Krauthammer Commits Terrorist Act on the Opinion Pages of the Washington Post
Terrorists terrorize -- it's what they do.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
As long as Emanuel/Likud infects
Posted by: weathered on Oct 30, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the oval office and GoldmanSachs steals w/impunity we will suffer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama was elected based on his status-quo perpetuating campaign, and promises to expand...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Oct 30, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the failures of the Bush presidency.

Why would you expect anything different?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on Oct 30, 2009 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for change I could believe in...

And I'm still waiting for it to happen.

Unfortunately in the short span of the Obama Presidency the actions he and his administration have taken are more and MORE of the same. They are just explained or ignored in a more eloquent fashion.

More war.
More ducking accountability for torture.
More ignoring rendition.
More continued use of foreign torture sites
More domestic spying
More good sounding words without actions.

And strangely, puzzlingly, a President that proposes and then expects someone else to do the creation, planning and execution.

The saying is, "In the dark all cats are grey."

Unfortunately in the modern US and "our" government WE are always in the dark. And it more and more looks like all cats are grey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Sides of the Same Coin....
Posted by: shill on Oct 31, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is what we have in this country when it comes to political parties. Mr. Obama is in every way more leader-like, more likeable,and more articulate than his belligerent, frat boy spoiled predecessor; but the policies remain the same; a "New World Order" with the U.S.A. dictating tems to everyone else. Therefore, we have to have troops stationed around the world, pay for the defense budgets of other nations as well as our own bloated defense budget (it's good for jobs too) so that we can back up our wishes militarily if we have to. It's called "Empire," and like all other past empires, we are stretching our country's resources to the brink, both militarily and economically. Instead of our military being primarily used for the defense of OUR country as stated in our Constitution, (a goal it failed miserably at on 9/11) it is being used for a multiplicity of other political purposes. And it is BOTH political parties who are to blame, as well as a citizenry who wants to idolize the military. Ivan Eland writes in depth about this with more precision and expertise than I could ever manage. Look him up on Google, especially his book, "The Empire Has No Clothes." Then vote Libertarian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have You Forgotten What Obama Said on the Campaign Trail About Afghanistan?
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Oct 31, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He said all along that Bush's war in Iraq was "a massive distraction from the real war on terror in Afghanistan" -- which exactly matched my sentiment that Bush squandered everything by diverting energies that were focused on defeating al-Qaida and instead went after Saddam Hussein to avenge Saddam's attempt to kill Bush's father in 1993 when Bush 41 was visiting U.S. troops in Kuwait.

Lest we forget, Saddam sent a team os assassins to kill the elder Bush, but they were captured by Kuwaiti security forces. After the news of their capture broke, President Bill Clinton sent Tomahawk cruise missiles slamming into the Baghdad headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service in retaliation.

From the moment the Supreme Court declared the younger Bush the winner of the 2000 election, I knew -- and everyone else should have known -- that Bush 43 was going to after Saddam for trying to kill his father and that nothing was going to stop him from getting his revenge.

Not even the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

In fact, Bush used the attacks as the perfect pretext to go after Saddam -- although 9/11 did force him to postpone his revenge against the Iraqi leader by 18 months.

Were it not for Bush's foolhardy diversion to Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan would be much different than it is now. But thanks to Bush's obsession with wiping out Saddam -- without any plan for dealing with the aftermath -- Obama is forced to deal with Afghanistan in a manner that he personally would have preferred to avoid, but cannot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is no good all saying yes sir.We need some one to tell us WHY
Posted by: flymulla on Oct 31, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the broad, down-the-road predictions made in Global Trends 2025 have, in fact, already come to pass. Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- collectively known as the BRIC countries -- are already playing far more assertive roles in global economic affairs, as the report predicted would happen in perhaps a decade or so. At the same time, the dominant global role once monopolized by the United States with a helping hand from the major Western industrial powers -- collectively known as the Group of 7 (G-7) -- has already faded away at a remarkable pace. Countries that once looked to the United States for guidance on major international issues are ignoring Washington's counsel and instead creating their own autonomous policy networks. The United States is becoming less inclined to deploy its military forces abroad as rival powers increase their own capabilities and non-state actors rely on "asymmetrical" means of attack to overcome the U.S. advantage in conventional firepower.
Thank you for submitting your comments. Your comment may take a few moments to appear. Inappropriate comments will be removed.
No one seems to be saying this out loud -- yet -- but let's put it bluntly: less than a year into the 15-year span of Global Trends 2025, the days of America's unquestioned global dominance have come to an end. It may take a decade or two (or three) before historians will be able to look back and say with assurance, "That was the moment when the United States ceased to be the planet's preeminent power and was forced to behave like another major player in a world of many competing great powers." The indications of this great transition, however, are there for those who care to look.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Middle Class Rebirth Obama sil vous plait
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Oct 31, 2009 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rape of Middle class from 1980 to 2009

SOLUTIONS--
A. Remove Social Security Cap--Why should very rich pay 1/1000th and Middle Class pay 6.2%

B. Increase Dividend Tax from 15 to 28%. Capital vs Labor. Be Fair.
Coal Miner pays 28% and man sitting on butt pays 15% Labor is as important as capital.
Try doing without either.

C. Estate Tax Increase.

D. Increase Corp profit Tax.
Stop Deceptions. Top rate is 35%. Pay 16%.
Screams on cnbc is "cut top rate". So Rich can pay 10% not average of 16%.
Eliminate many deductions which enrich Rich.

E. Public Finance Elections.--Candidate cannot use any money except that given by the public.

F. Wall Street—Revert back to selling stock to raise funds for corporations to create Jobs-Jobs. Eliminate the operations which are mere Gambling in a Rich Man’s Casino. Want to gamble go to Las Vegas.
Stop Rich Gamblers from exporting our jobs.
Loss of jobs=Wall Street.

G. Regain strong Unions so Labor can get a Fair Share of profits. Capital + Labor. Both important. Try doing without either one.

Those suggestions will return us to Democratic Philosophy of PAY YOUR WAY and Prosperous Middle Class or Majority of people.

Why should a few live so high on the hog and majority get pickled pigs feet.

Go away from Republican philosophy of-- Spend and Borrow Let Kids Pay Tomorrow.

1945 to 1981--Each percentile increased in Wealth and Income almost evenly in percentage.

Reagan big tax cuts of 60% (70 to 28) for Richest--40% to Big Corporations -big Dividend Rate cut for Wall Street Rich Gamblers.

Tax Increases of biggest in history the Social Security Tax Increase--A Tax on elderly on 50% of Social Security Income--Five cent tax on Gas.

Bush Big Tax cuts for Very Rich.

RESULTS--important read carefully

from 1980 to 2007

Top 1% got 35.4% of Total Wealth Increase
Top 1% got 44.1% of Total Income Growth

In 2007 a not so pretty picture

NET WORTH

top 20% owned 85% of Total Wealth and bottom 80% owned 15%

Of nonhome wealth top 20% owned 93% and 80% owned 7%

top 20% got 60% of Total Income and 80% got 40%

It is a disaster for the future of the huge Middle Class. A small few own the majority.

Will we ever get a Congress and President willing to do what is FAIR.

Redistribute the Income and Wealth.

I fear for our future.

cswinney2@triad.rr.com
author-unpublished-
All American Party-How the Democrats built a prosperous Middle Class and Conservatives are determined to destroy what is left to further enrich the rich.
available for dynamic speech on it
mean mean conservative destroying fighting machine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're a nation of serfs fed propaganda
Posted by: lclark on Oct 31, 2009 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The division of wealth between the wealthiest 5% and the remainder of the population is greater than in any other so-called western democracy.

CE0 are paid at a rate of 360 to 1; they earn an average years salary for a day in thier position.

This administration said it would:

-reign in the gambling and greed of the financial sector. Instead it has the same gang running Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

-revisit NAFTA and other trade treaties that disadvantage the maintenance of manufacturing and REAL nation wealth production. It hasn't and ain't gonna.

-would revitalize the economy with "green" jobs. Instead the stimulus money went to state government to maintain thier work force. After the NE blackout Bush said the grid needed to be and would be remade to make the control and tramsmission of electricity more efficient. Didn't happen. Obama said there would be rapid deployment of of green technologies, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and creating home grown industry. Instead he funded "resrearch".

-Bush was for amnesty for illegal aliens and Obama is as well.

-Bush administration used various PR tricks to dilute enforcement of illegal migration and Obama has continued in the same way.

-Bush introduced the nefarious Patriot Act and Obama maintains it.

-Obama promised no new taxes on the middle class but will mandate the purchase of healthcare coverage, even though in his campaign he said it would not be COMPULSORY. If I have to purchase something by government mandate it's a tax on my income.

-A lot of problems could be solved by not limiting the tax on the wealthiest, such as social security shortfall. Even a public healthcare system could be funded that way. Instead the inequities remain.

-In agriculture we've seem the same support for corporate farms while disadvantaging the family farm.

-Both parties have asisted in the collectivization of resources to corporations. While we see label this as Capitalism in practice it actually is no different that the collectivization under the Soviet system. A partnership of government and and elite. Corporatism.

Obama continues the policies that have led to the de-industrialization of the country, the collectivization of the means of production, the increase in public debt, and the subservience and dependence of the U.S. government to transnational and private interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]