The United States Supreme Court illegitimately installed George W. Bush as president of the United States after the 2000 elections. Boy George was going to while away his time in office, rewarding friends in politics and the oil and defense industries with rich contracts.
That was why Dick Cheney held those meetings with energy interests behind closed doors. It was as evil a cabal as you could get. They were corrupt and lazy, to boot.
Then, history intervened.
Whatever you believed about the origins and the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States, the events propelled our nation on a path that altered the course of our history. Every step along the way, when our nation’s leaders had opportunities to chose paths that would strengthen or imperil our nation, they chose wrong.
They chose torture, rather than follow the rule of law. They belittled and denigrated international laws and institutions, rather than harness the goodwill of the community of nations.
The new administration, a legitimately elected president, Barack Obama, bearing a mandate from the people of this country, has begun trying to repair the damagewrought by the last administration. They won’t always make the right decisions. Their steps might be, at times, unsure. But they have one thing George W. Bush never had. Legitimacy.
UPDATE: A special prosecutor should decide the fates of John Yoo, Jay C. Bybee and other memo writers. They should suffer the consequences for violations of international laws that their memos aided and abetted.
All lower level soldiers punished for following orders should have their punishment reduced (because we now know they did not torture on a whim but were, in fact, following orders).
Gen. Geoffrey Miller should be tried for War Crimes.
A Truth & Reconciliation Commission (senior members of the judiciary and the U.S. Congress; governed by strictures of Congressional testimony) should get sworn testimonies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, and Colin Powell. Their testimonies will be immunized if they tell the truth. Liars should be prosecuted for the wholesale violations of international laws (conventions against torture and the Geneva conventions) that occurred.
The following humble suggestions are based on my 70 years of experience as an underground fighter, special forces soldier in the 1948 war, editor-in-chief of a newsmagazine, member of the Knesset and founding member of a peace movement:
-1- As far as Israeli-Arab peace is concerned, you should act from Day One.
-2- Israeli elections are due to take place in February 2009. You can have an indirect but important and constructive impact on the outcome, by announcing your unequivocal determination to achieve Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-all-Arab peace in 2009.
-3- Unfortunately, all your predecessors since 1967 have played a double game. While paying lip service to peace, and sometimes going through the motions of making some effort for peace, they have in practice supported our governments in moving in the very opposite direction. In particular, they have given tacit approval to the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories, each of which is a land mine on the road to peace.
-4- All the settlements are illegal in international law. The distinction sometimes made between “illegal” outposts and the other settlements is a propaganda ploy designed to obscure this simple truth.
-5- All the settlements since 1967 have been built with the express purpose of making a Palestinian state – and hence peace – impossible, by cutting the territory of the prospective State of Palestine into ribbons. Practically all our government departments and the army have openly or secretly helped to build, consolidate and enlarge the settlements – as confirmed by the 2005 report prepared for the government (!) by Lawyer Talia Sasson.
-6- By now, the number of settlers in the West Bank has reached some 250,000 (apart from the 200,000 settlers in the Greater Jerusalem area, whose status is somewhat different.) They are politically isolated, and sometimes detested by the majority of the Israel public, but enjoy significant support in the army and government ministries.
-7- No Israeli government would dare to confront the concentrated political and material might of the settlers. Such a confrontation would need very strong leadership and the unstinting support of the President of the United States to have any chance of success.
-8- Lacking these, all “peace negotiations” are a sham. The Israeli government and its US backers have done everything possible to prevent the negotiations with both the Palestinians and the Syrians from reaching any conclusion, for fear of provoking a confrontation with the settlers and their supporters. The present “Annapolis” negotiations are as hollow as all the preceding ones, each side keeping up the pretense for its own political interests.
-9- The Clinton administration, and even more so the Bush administration, allowed the Israeli government to keep up this pretense. It is therefore imperative to prevent members of these administrations from diverting your Middle Eastern policy into the old channels.
-10- It is important for you to make a complete new start, and to state this publicly. Discredited ideas and failed initiatives – such as the Bush “vision”, the Road Map, Annapolis and the like – should by thrown into the junkyard of history.
-11- To make a new start, the aim of American policy should be stated clearly and succinctly. This should be: to achieve a peace based on the Two-State Solution within a defined time-span (say by the end of 2009).
-12- It should be pointed out that this aim is based on a reassessment of the American national interest, in order to extract the poison from American-Arab and American-Muslim relations, strengthen peace-oriented regimes, defeat al-Qaeda-type terrorism, end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and achieve a viable accommodation with Iran.
-13- The terms of Israeli-Palestinian peace are clear. They have been crystallized in thousands of hours of negotiations, conferences, meetings and conversations. They are:
13.1 A sovereign and viable State of Palestine will be established side by side with the State of Israel.
13.2 The border between the two states will be based on the pre-1967 Armistice Line (the “Green Line”). Insubstantial alterations can be arrived at by mutual agreement on an exchange of territories on a 1:1 basis.
13.3 East Jerusalem, including the Haram-al-Sharif (“Temple Mount”) and all Arab neighborhoods will serve as the capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem, including the Western Wall and all Jewish neighborhoods, will serve as the capital of Israel. A joint municipal authority, based on equality, may be established by mutual consent to administer the city as one territorial unit.
13.4 All Israeli settlements – except any which might be joined to Israel in the framework of a mutually agreed exchange of territories – will be evacuated (see 15 below).
13.5 Israel will recognize in principle the right of the refugees to return. A Joint Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, composed of Palestinian, Israeli and international historians, will examine the events of 1948 and 1967 and determine who was responsible for what. Each individual refugee will be given the choice between (1) repatriation to the State of Palestine, (2) remaining where he/she is living now and receiving generous compensation, (3) returning to Israel and being resettled, (4) emigrating to any other country, with generous compensation. The number of refugees who will return to Israeli territory will be fixed by mutual agreement, it being understood that nothing will be done that materially alters the demographic composition of the Israeli population. The large funds needed for the implementation of this solution must be provided by the international community in the interest of world peace. This will save much of the money spent today on military expenditure and direct grants from the US.
13.6 The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip constitute one national unit. An extraterritorial connection (road, railway, tunnel or bridge) will connect the West Bank with the Gaza Strip.
13.7 Israel and Syria will sign a peace agreement. Israel will withdraw to the pre-1967 line and all settlements on the Golan Heights will be dismantled. Syria will cease all anti-Israeli activities conducted directly or by proxy. The two parties will establish normal relations between them.
13.8 In accordance with the Saudi Peace Initiative, all member states of the Arab League will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it. Talks about a future Middle Eastern Union, on the model of the EU, possibly to include Turkey and Iran, may be considered.
-14- Palestinian unity is essential for peace. Peace made with only one section of the people is worthless. The US will facilitate Palestinian reconciliation and the unification of Palestinian structures. To this end, the US will end its boycott of Hamas, which won the last elections, start a political dialogue with the movement and encourage Israel to do the same. The US will respect any result of democratic Palestinian elections.
-15- The US will aid the government of Israel in confronting the settlement problem. As from now, settlers will be given one year to leave the occupied territories voluntarily in return for compensation that will allow them to build their homes in Israel proper. After that, all settlements – except those within any areas to be joined to Israel under the peace agreement – will be evacuated.
-16- I suggest that you, as President of the United States, come to Israel and address the Israeli people personally, not only from the rostrum of the Knesset but also at a mass rally in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Israel in 1977, and, by addressing the Israeli people directly, completely changed their attitude towards peace with Egypt. At present, most Israelis feel insecure, uncertain and afraid of any daring peace initiative, partly because of a deep distrust of anything coming from the Arab side. Your personal intervention, at the critical moment, could literally do wonders in creating the psychological basis for peace.
This article was published in the current issue of the progressive Jewish-American monthly TIKKUN.
This month is the 50th anniversary of the overthrow of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and his replacement by Fidel Castro, who, sadly enough, was also to become a dictator. Shortly after the revolution, however, there emerged a more attractive and charismatic figure, his Argentinian lieutenant Ernesto “Che” Guevara, who became one of the great heroes of the 1960s counterculture and was murdered by the Bolivian army in association with the CIA in 1967. There was much talk at the time of a movie about Che’s life. Tony Richardson was going to make one from a screenplay by Alan Sillitoe and one of the greatest political film-makers, Italian Marxist Francesco Rosi, sent posters all over Europe announcing his search for an unknown Che lookalike.
In the event, Hollywood got in first with Richard Fleischer’s Che! (1969), co-scripted by the formerly black-listed Michael Wilson, co-author of Lawrence of Arabia, with Omar Sharif as a glamorous Che and Jack Palance as a villainous drunken Fidel. Told in flashback from Che’s death, it was a compromised work in almost every way that pleased neither his friends nor his enemies.
Now, partly, one supposes, as a reaction against the policies of the Bush administration, there has been a renewed interest in Che and he’s jumped off the T-shirts and back into the cinema, starting with The Motorcycle Diaries, produced by Robert Redford and directed by Brazilian Walter Salles. In that attractive film, the young Che (handsome Gael García Bernal), newly graduated from medical school in Buenos Aires, makes a lengthy journey around South America with a chum in the early 1950s and is politicised by the experience.
Steven Soderbergh‘s two-part film picks up from there. The first part opens with Che (Benicio Del Toro) meeting Fidel in Mexico City in 1955 (both clean shaven at the time) and joining the small invasion party that established a base in the Sierra Maestra in Cuba. It ends in January 1959 when the 30-year-old Che, cautioning against triumphalism and forbidding his men to indulge in looting, heads towards Havana to begin what he considers the really important part of the revolution, creating a new kind of society.
It’s an intelligent, fast-moving, well-researched film, based in part on Che’s posthumously published Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War, offering both a convincing account of the bitter, hard-fought struggle and a portrait of a great and complex revolutionary. He was first valued for his medical skills, but soon became such an essential adviser that Fidel tried to keep him out of harm’s way.
Che stands alongside his fellow communist Leon Trotsky as a model of the intellectual as man of action. Like him, he was a writer, thinker, strategist and tactician. Ruthless men of honour, they made up in courage and willpower what they lacked in physique (Che suffered throughout his life from chronic asthma) and died violently in exile. All this comes out vividly in the course of an exciting, adventurous narrative with Guevara figuring in virtually every scene.
The war is shot in colour, into which Soderbergh, who also photographed the film, cuts black-and-white, newsreel-style footage of Che’s subsequent appearances in New York following the revolution. In these flash-forwards, he defends Cuban policy in private discussion and publicly before the United Nations, challenging a hostile America, represented by Adlai Stevenson, and representatives of right-wing Latin American countries. Del Toro shows Che growing through the challenges and privations of the struggle, and one looks forward to Che – Part 2 which opens towards the end of February.
In two columns last week and this week, Village Voice columnist and legendary civil liberties activist Nat Hentoff argues vigorously for bringing American officials responsible for human rights abuses during The Bush Years to be brought up on War Crimes charges. Last week he said:
With regard to serial war crimes, “accountability” would mean putting on trial George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and his longtime associate, David Addington, and a coven of lawyers from the Justice and Defense departments.
He continued:
If you remember, the Constitution begins: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It’s our government. And neither Dick Cheney nor George W. Bush was among our Founders.
While Obama emphasizes that we must look forward and not backward, there is a way to clean out the cesspools of the last eight years.
Next week: the first steps on how to structure realistic, open forums of accountability—even if President Barack Obama chooses not to join us.
In this week’s installment, he continues the argument:
Among President Obama’s advisers (and, seemingly, in the man himself), there is a division as to what, if anything, should be done to the chief rapists of the Constitution since 9/11. On one hand, with so much for the new president to do, he’ll need public support, so why distract the citizenry with old news? Also, for many of us, there’s much more concern about keeping our jobs (or scrambling to find new ones) than finding out who ordered waterboarding or gave the CIA blanket permission to hide away suspects in secret “black-site” prisons.
The answer to this quandary—and I think Barack Obama is capable of understanding this—is provided by Scott Horton, former president of the International League for Human Rights, and a Tom Paine of our time, in a story in Harper’s December issue, called “Justice After Bush”: “If the people wish to retain sovereignty, they must also reclaim responsibility for the actions taken in their name. As of yet, they have not. . . . Pursuing the Bush administration for crimes long known to the public may amount to a kind of hypocrisy, but it is a necessary hypocrisy. The alternative, simply doing nothing, not only ratifies torture (among other crimes), it ratifies the failure of the people to control the actions of their government” (emphasis added).
We need to keep vigilant what the new administration does and take action if our government won’t.
Moderator: Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor, state department policy advisor and Navy secretary, among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisors and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you’re promising voters.
Much laughter, including Mrs. Hillary Clinton distinctive laugh before she offered this crack.
Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: I want to hear that.
Candidate Barack Obama: Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.
Much applause.
Sen. Obama, with a big smile on his face, continued as the applause rolled: I want to gather up talent from everywhere. You know, we haven’t talked too much about the war but one of the points that I’ve tried to make during the course of this year during the campaign is I want to change the mindset that got us into war because I think that, since 9/11, we’ve had a president who essentially fed us a politics of fear and distorted our foreign policy in profound ways. I think that there are a lot of good people in the Clinton years, in the Carter years, George Bush I, who understand that our military power is just one component of our power, and I revere what our military does. I will do whatever it takes, as commander-in-chief, to keep the American people safe but I know that part of making us safe is restoring our respect in the world and I think those who are advising me agree with that. Part of the agenda that we’re putting forward in terms of talking not just to our friends but also to our enemies, initiating contacts with Muslim leaders around the world, doubling our efforts in terms of foreign aid, all those are designed to create long term security by creating long-term prosperity around the world.
And so it has come to pass, that little noted exchange during a debate in Iowa has largely come true. On stage that day almost a year ago were Obama, HRC, Sen. Joe Biden, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and former Senator John Edwards. Well, Biden is now the Vice-President, Richardson is Commerce Secretary, and HRC is Secretary of State.
Only Edwards, who disgraced himself by having an affair on his cancer-stricken wife, did not make the cut.
Obama, as he has resolutely built his administration with people recognized as stalwarts in their fields, says he’s simply gathering the very best talent available to lead America. We may quibble (my views on HRC are very well known) on some of the names, but it is clear that the President-elect (God, how I love writing that!) knows very well where he wants to lead the nation and how.
President-Elect Barack Obama Holds First Press Conference
Transcript of the news conference:
Obama:Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much.
This morning, we woke up to more sobering news about the state of our economy. The 240,000 jobs lost in October marks the 10th consecutive month that our economy has shed jobs. In total, we’ve lost nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, and more than 10 million Americans are now unemployed.
Tens of millions of families are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills and stay in their homes. Their stories are an urgent reminder that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we’re going to have to act swiftly to resolve it.
Now, the United States has only one government and one president at a time. And until January 20th of next year, that government is the current administration.
I’ve spoken to President Bush. I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that his economic policy team keeps us fully informed as developments unfold. And I’m also thankful for his invitation to the White House.
Immediately after I become president, I’m going to confront this economic crisis head on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.
And this morning, I met with members of my Transition Economic Advisory Board, who are standing behind me, alongside my vice president-elect, Joe Biden.
They will help to guide the work of my transition team, working with Rahm Emanuel, my chief of staff, in developing a strong set of policies to respond to this crisis. We discussed in the earlier meeting several of the most immediate challenges facing oureconomyand key priorities on which to focus on in the days and weeks ahead.
First of all, we need a rescue plan for the middle class that invests in immediate efforts to create jobs and provide relief to families that are watching their paychecks shrink and their life savings disappear.
A particularly urgent priority is a further extension of unemployment insurance benefits for workers who cannot find work in the increasingly weak economy.
A fiscal stimulus plan that will jump-start economic growth is long overdue. I’ve talked about it throughout this — the last few months of the campaign. We should get it done.
Second, we have to address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on the other sectors of our economy: small businesses that are struggling to meet their payrolls and finance their holiday inventories; and state and municipal governments facing devastating budget cuts and tax increases.
We must also remember that the financial crisis is increasingly global and requires a global response.
The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces, hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry.
The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I would like to see the administration do everything it can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted. In addition, I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producingfuel-efficient carshere in the United States of America.
And I was glad to be joined today by Governor Jennifer Granholm, who obviously has great knowledge and great interest on this issue.
I’ve asked my team to explore what we can do under current law and whether additional legislation will be needed for this purpose.
Third, we will review the implementation of this administration’s financial program to ensure that the government’s efforts are achieving their central goal of stabilizing financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners, and not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance.
It is absolutely critical that the Treasury work closely with the FDIC, HUD, and other government agencies to use the substantial authority that they already have to help families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes.
Finally, as we monitor and address these immediate economic challenges, we will be moving forward in laying out a set of policies that will grow our middle class and strengthen our economy in the long term. We cannot afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, health care, education, and tax relief for middle-class families.
My transition team will be working on each of these priorities in the weeks ahead, and I intend to reconvene this advisory board to discuss the best ideas for responding to these immediate problems.
Let me close by saying this. I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead. We have taken some major action to date, and we will need further action during this transition and subsequent months.
Some of the choices that we make are going to be difficult. And I have said before and I will repeat again: It is not going to be quick, and it is not going to be easy for us to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in.
But America is a strong and resilient country. And I know we will succeed, if we put aside partisanship and politics and work together as one nation. That’s what I intend to do.
With that, let me open it up for some questions. And I’m going to start right here with you.
Question:Thank you, Mr. President-elect. I wonder what you think any president can accomplish during their first 100 days in office to turn the economy around? How far can you go? And what will be your priorities on day one?
Obama:Well, I think that a new president can do an enormous amount to restore confidence, to move an agenda forward that speaks to the needs of the economy and the needs of middle-class families all across the country.
I’ve outlined during the course of the campaign some critical issues that I intend to work on.
We have a current financial crisis that is spilling out into rest of the economy, and we have taken some action so far. More action is undoubtedly going to be needed. My transition team is going to be monitoring very closely what happens over the course of the next several months.
The one thing I can say with certainty is that we are going to need to see a stimulus package passed either before or after inauguration.
We are going to have to focus on jobs, because the hemorrhaging of jobs has an impact, obviously, on consumer confidence and the ability of people to — to buy goods and services and can have enormous spillover effects.
And I think it’s going to be very important for us to provide the kinds of assistance to state and local governments to make sure that they don’t compound some of the problems that are already out there by having to initiate major layoffs or initiate tax increases.
So there are some things that we know we’re going to have to do, but I’m confident that a new president can have an enormous impact. That’s why I ran for president.
Question:(off-mike) … from House Democrats that the stimulus package may be in trouble, that it’s going to be a hard time getting out of a lame-duck session. Are you still confident that you would be able to get something done before you actually take office?
Obama:I want to see a stimulus package sooner rather than later. If it does not get done in the lame-duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States.
Question:Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president ofIransent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president. I’m wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad’s note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?
Obama:I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state — repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.
Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.
Iran’s support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.
I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It’s only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee- jerk fashion. I think we’ve got to think it through.
But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won’t be until January 20th.
Question:Picking up what we were just talking about, your meeting with President Bush on Monday. When — he is still the decider, obviously, stating the obvious. When you disagree with decisions he makes, will you defer? Will you challenge? Will you confront? And if it becomes confrontational, could that rattle the markets even more?
Obama:Well, President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I to — to meet with him and First Lady Laura Bush. We are gratified by the invitation. I’m sure that, in addition to taking a tour of the White House, there’s going to be a substantive conversation between myself and the president.
I’m not going to anticipate problems. I’m going to go in there with a spirit of bipartisanship and a sense that both the president and various leaders in Congress all recognize the severity of the situation right now and want to get stuff done.
And, you know, undoubtedly there may end up being differences between not just members of different parties, but between people within the same party.
The critical point and I think the critical tone that has to be struck by all of us involved right now is the American people need help. This economy is in bad shape. And we have just completed one of the longest election cycles in recorded history.
Now is a good time for us to set politics aside for a while and think practically about what will actually work to move the economy forward. And it’s in that spirit that I’ll have the conversation with the president.
Question:Thank you, Mr. President-elect. With the country facing two wars and a financial crisis, do you think it’s important for you to move especially quickly to fill key cabinet posts, such as treasury secretary and secretary of state?
Obama:When we have an announcement about cabinet appointments, we will make them. There is no doubt that I think people want to know who’s going to make up our team.
And I want to move with all deliberate haste, but I want to emphasize “deliberate” as well as “haste.” I’m proud of the choice I made of vice president, partly because we did it right. I’m proud of the choice of chief of staff, because we thought it through.
And I think it’s very important, in all these key positions, both in the economic team and the national security team, to — to get it right and not to be so rushed that you end up making mistakes.
I’m confident that we’re going to have an outstanding team, and we will be rolling that out in subsequent weeks.
Question:Yes, sir. To what extent — to what extent are you planning to use your probably pretty great influence in determining the successor for your Senate seat? And what sort of criteria should the governor be looking at in filling that position?
Obama:This is the governor’s decision; it is not my decision.
And I think that the criteria that I would have for my successor would be the same criteria that I’d have if I were a voter: somebody who is capable; somebody who is passionate about helping working families in Illinois meet their — meet their dreams.
And I think there are going to be a lot of good choices out there, but it is the governor’s decision to make, not mine.
Lynn Sweet?
Question:Mr. President-elect …
Obama:What happened to your arm, Lynn?
Question:I cracked my shoulder running to your speech on election night.
Obama:Oh, no.
(Laughter)
Question:(inaudible)
Obama:I think that was the only major incident during the — the entire Grant Park celebration.
Question:Thank you for asking. Here’s my question. I’m wondering what you’re doing to get ready. Have you spoke to any living ex-presidents, what books you might be reading?
Everyone wants to know, what kind of dog are you going to buy for your girls? Have you decided on a private or public school for your daughters?
Obama:Let — let me list those off.
In terms of speaking to former presidents, I’ve spoken to all of them that are living. Obviously, President Clinton — I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.
I have re-read some of Lincoln’s writings, who’s always an extraordinary inspiration.
And, by the way, President Carter, President Bush, Sr., as well as the current president have all been very gracious and offered to provide any help that they can in this transition process.
With respect to the dog, this is a major issue. I think it’s generated more interest on our Web site than just about anything.
We have — we have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic.
On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog, but, obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So — so whether we’re going to be able to balance those two things I think is a pressing issue on the Obama household.
And with respect to schools, Michelle will be — will be scouting out some schools. We’ll be making a decision about that in the future.
Question:You are now privy to a lot of intelligence that you haven’t had access to before, in fact, much of what the president sees, I’m sure all of it.
First of all, do you — what do you think about the state of U.S. intelligence, whether you think it needs beefing up, whether you think there’s enough interaction between the various agencies?
And, second of all, has anything that you’ve heard given you pause about anything you’ve talked about on the campaign trail?
Obama:Well, as you know, if — if there was something I had heard, I couldn’t tell you. But…
Question:(off-mike)
Obama:I have received intelligence briefings. And I will make just a general statement.
Our intelligence process can always improve. I think it has gotten better. And, you know, beyond that, I don’t think I should comment on the nature of the intelligence briefings.
That was a two-parter. Was there another aspect to that?
Question:Well, just whether — you know, absent what you’ve heard…
Obama:OK, I get you.
Question:… whether anything has given you pause.
Obama:I’m going to skip that.
Question:Mr. President-elect, do you still intend to seek income tax increases for upper-income Americans? And if so, should these Americans expect to pay higher taxes in 2009?
Obama:The — my tax plan represented a net tax cut. It provided for substantial middle-class tax cuts; 95 percent of working Americans would receive them.
It also provided for cuts in capital gains for small businesses, additional tax credits. All of it is designed for job growth.
My priority is going to be, how do we grow the economy? How do we create more jobs?
I think that the plan that we’ve put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.
But, understand, the goal of my plan is to provide tax relief to families that are struggling, but also to boost the capacity of the economy to grow from the bottom up.
I went to the 92nd Street Y two Saturday evenings ago to see Tavis Smiley interview Cornel West. I don’t care for Smiley, but I went because I was entertaining a friend’s guest from London (a sister) who wanted to go — real bad.
About halfway through the evening, I noticed she was leaning far way from me, and almost sitting in a seat two spots from me. I was heckling, Tavis. She was pretending not to know me.
You know all Tavis did the entire night was bash Obama and talk about how horrible the man is for the country, and how everyone voting for him was basically a “negro.” The audience was smart though . . . they didn’t eat up his rhetoric.
But I couldn’t help myself, so don’t ever take me to anything involving, Tavis . . . I don’t know how to act.
During question and answer a few people politely called him out with thoughtful questions. And Cornel West finally said what Amiri Baraka has been saying all along to these pseudo-revolutionaries: McCain is the enemy. For example, how about this, Tavis!
The Bush administration this month is quietly cutting off birth control supplies to some of the world’s poorest women in Africa.
Thus the paradox of a “pro-life” administration adopting a policy whose result will be tens of thousands of additional abortions each year — along with more women dying in childbirth.
The saga also spotlights a clear difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. Senator Obama supports U.N.-led efforts to promote family planning; Senator McCain stands with President Bush in opposing certain crucial efforts to help women reduce unwanted pregnancies in Africa and Asia.
This election is serious, Tavis. Either you’re part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.
Prior to the debate in Tennessee, C-Span re-broadcast the Oct. 15, 1992 debate between incumbent President George H. W. Bush, then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, and crackpot businessman H. Ross Perot. Some of you will recall that debate as the town hall style debate where Pres. Bush doomed his re-election by impatiently looking at his watch, as if he had somewhere better he’d rather be.
What the re-broadcast made evident 16 years later is how phenomenal a candidate Bill Clinton was. He was so young but so wise and so brilliant. He played the audience masterfully, like a master violinist playing a rare Stradivarius, connecting many questions he answered that night to many members of the audience.
Carole Simpson, the ABC News correspondent who was the moderator that night, asked a question that I did not remember until I saw it again tonight but which struck me as important:
“We have very little time left and it occurs to me that we have talked all this time and there has not been one question about some of the racial tensions and ethnic tensions in America. Is there anyone in this audience that would like to pose a question to the candidates on this?”
AUDIENCE QUESTION: What I’d like to know, and this is to any of the three of you, is aside from the recent accomplishment of your party, aside from those accomplishments in racial representation, and wit-hout citing any of your current appointments or successful elections, when do you estimate your party will both nominate and elect an Afro-American and female ticket to the presidency of the U.S.?
SIMPSON: Governor Clinton, why don’t you answer that first?
CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any idea but I hope it will happen some time in my lifetime.
AUDIENCE QUESTION: I do, too.
CLINTON: I believe that this country is electing more and more African Americans and Latinos and Asian Americans who are representing districts that are themselves not necessarily of a majority of their race. The American people are beginning to vote across racial lines, and I hope it will happen more and more.
More and more women are being elected. Look at all these women Senate candidates we have here. And you know, according to my mother and my wife and my daughter, this world would be a lot better place if women were running it most of the time.
I do think there are special experiences and judgments and backgrounds and understandings that women bring to this process, by the way. This lady said here, how have you been affected by the economy. I mean, women know what’s it like to be paid an unequal amount for equal work. They know what it’s like not to have flexible working hours. They know what it’s like not to have family leave or childcare. So I think it would be a good thing for America if it happened. And I think it will happen in my lifetime.
SIMPSON: Okay. I’m sorry. We have just a little bit of time left. Let’s try to get responses from each of them. President Bush or Mr. Perot?
BUSH: I think if Barbara Bush were running this year she’d be elected. But it’s too late.
(Laughter) You don’t want us to mention appointees, but when you see the quality of people in our administration, see how Colin Powell performed — I say administration —
AUDIENCE QUESTION: (Inaudible).
BUSH: You weren’t impressed with the fact that he —
AUDIENCE QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m extremely impressed with that.
BUSH: Yeah, but wouldn’t that suggest to the American people, then, here’s a quality person, if he decided that he could automatically get the nomination of either party?
AUDIENCE QUESTION: Sure — I just wanted to know — yes.
BUSH: Huh?
AUDIENCE QUESTION: I’m totally impressed with that. I just wanted to know is, when’s your-
BUSH: Oh, I see.
AUDIENCE QUESTION: When?
BUSH: You mean, time?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.
BUSH: I don’t know — starting after 4 years.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Laughs)
BUSH: No, I think you’ll see —
SIMPSON: Mr. Perot.
BUSH: I think you’ll see more minority candidates and women candidates coming forward.
SIMPSON: We have — thank you.
BUSH: This is supposed to be the year of the women in the Senate. Let’s see how they do. I hope a lot of —
SIMPSON: Mr. Perot — I don’t want to cut you off any more but we only have a minute left.
PEROT: I have a fearless forecast. A message just won’t do it. Colin Powell will be on somebody’s ticket 4 years from now — right? Right? He wanted that said — 4 years.
SIMPSON: How about a woman?
PEROT: Now, if won’t be, General Waller would be — you say, why do you keep picking military people. These are people that I just happen to know and have a high regard for. I’m sure there are hundreds of others.
BUSH: How about Dr. Lou Sullivan?
PEROT: Absolutely.
BUSH: Yeah, a good man.
SIMPSON: What about a woman?
PEROT: Oh, oh.
BUSH: (Inaudible) totally agree. My candidate’s back there.
SIMPSON: (Laughs)
PEROT: Okay. I can think of many.
SIMPSON: Many?
PEROT: Absolutely.
SIMPSON: When?
PEROT: All right. How about Sandra Day O’Connor as an example?
SIMPSON: Hm-hm.
PEROT: Dr. Bernadine Healy —
SIMPSON: Good.
PEROT: National Institutes of Health. I’ll yield the floor.
BUSH: All good Republicans.
PEROT: Name some more.
(Laughter)
SIMPSON: Thank you. I want to apologize to our audience because there were 209 people here and there were 209 questions. We only got to a fraction of them and I’m sorry to those of you that didn’t get to ask your questions but we must move to the conclusion of the program.
In a long article, the New Yorker magazine endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), and made the argument for why Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), would be the wrong choice to lead the nation at this time:
Meanwhile, the nominee, John McCain, played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever-increasing ardor.
* * *
Since the 2004 election, however, McCain has moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination. He paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell and preachers of his ilk. He abandoned immigration reform, eventually coming out against his own bill. Most shocking, McCain, who had repeatedly denounced torture under all circumstances, voted in February against a ban on the very techniques of “enhanced interrogation” that he himself once endured in Vietnam—as long as the torturers were civilians employed by the C.I.A.
On almost every issue, McCain and the Democratic Party’s nominee, Barack Obama, speak the generalized language of “reform,” but only Obama has provided a convincing, rational, and fully developed vision. McCain has abandoned his opposition to the Bush-era tax cuts and has taken up the demagogic call—in the midst of recession and Wall Street calamity, with looming crises in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—formoretax cuts. Bush’s expire in 2011. If McCain, as he has proposed, cuts taxes for corporations and estates, the benefits once more would go disproportionately to the wealthy.
In Washington, the craze for pure market triumphalism is over. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson arrived in town (via Goldman Sachs) a Republican, but it seems that he will leave a Democrat. In other words, he has come to see that the abuses that led to the current financial crisis––not least, excessive speculation on borrowed capital––can be fixed only with government regulation and oversight. McCain, who has never evinced much interest in, or knowledge of, economic questions, has had little of substance to say about the crisis. His most notable gesture of concern—a melodramatic call last month to suspend his campaign and postpone the first Presidential debate until the government bailout plan was ready—soon revealed itself as an empty diversionary tactic.
By contrast, Obama has made a serious study of the mechanics and the history of this economic disaster and of the possibilities of stimulating a recovery. Last March, in New York, in a speech notable for its depth, balance, and foresight, he said, “A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences.” Obama is committed to reforms that value not only the restoration of stability but also the protection of the vast majority of the population, which did not partake of the fruits of the binge years. He has called for greater and more programmatic regulation of the financial system; the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would help reverse the decay of our roads, bridges, and mass-transit systems, and create millions of jobs; and a major investment in the green-energy sector.
They chose torture, rather than follow the rule of law. They belittled and denigrated international laws and institutions, rather than harness the goodwill of the community of nations.
by Philip French , The Observer,
