What change?

(Note:  The Old Man wrote the following, which I post on his behalf.)

President Obama...some are still hoping, but...what's the change? 

1.  I will bring the troops home, starting immediately, and end the war in 12 months.

...as of September, gaining on two years into the Obama term, troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan was about 180,000, just below the all time high of about 195,000 during the previous administration. The cost of the wars reached a peak in 2007 of about $180B. The projected cost for 2010 (by the government) is about $170B, and requests by the Obama administration for 2011 extrapolate to...$170B. And...did you hear this week's proud statement by the President? He and NATO have agreed that they are aiming for a transfer of war leadership to the Afghanis by the end of...2014!...what change?

2.  The economy...I'll create 3 million jobs with this stimulus bill, and we have to pass it right now (don't even bother to read it, there's no time) and we'll keep unemployment under 8%.

...as we labor along at almost 10% unemployment for almost two years, with no projected end in sight, most are getting tired of the “yeah, but it would have been even worse, and besides, it wasn't my  fault”. If it weren't so sad, I'd be amused that Wall Street and the big banks have record earnings and huge bonuses again, while the rest of the country is hurting....what change?

3.  Restore respect in the world by using diplomacy (they love me, don't they?)

...Iran thumbs its' nose at the U.S., with its' pursuit of nuclear weapons unabated and Ahmadinejad referring publicly to Obama as “a cowboy”. This week a U.S.scientist said he was “stunned” by his visit to a “vast new Nuclear enrichment facility in North Korea. Russia continues to support Iran, and China lectures us on fiscal responsibility. There is no progress on middle east peace, and Muslim extremists still vow to kill us....what change?

4.  I'll close Gitmo within one year, (and end this endless detainment without trial)

...gaining on two years, no sign Gitmo will be closed, and one trial held. Further, the only one tried was only convicted of one conspiracy charge (not of any of the multiple terrorism charges) and the President said “we were prepared to hold him even if he wasn't convicted of any charges”....what change?

5.  We're going to end the “backroom deals” and allow C-Span to view negotiations.

...this is just blatantly false, from the “cornhusker kickback” to the Florida deal to the Stupak bribe to the  record earmarks to the refusal to let C-Span televise negotiations to the backroom secret negotiations with  everybody from big banks to insurance com- panies to unions et al.  ...what change?

6.  I'll eliminate “don't ask don't tell” and immediately allow gays to serve in the military.

...almost two years and the president passes the responsibility to a commission and Congress. Disgraceful.  Read up on Harry Truman and desegregation of the military. All it takes is a pen (and some courage)....what  change?

7.  The country needs a president who can get people to work together. I'll usher in the era of “post partisanship”.

…the last two years have been more divisive, not less divisive, and the president goes down in history as the only president to get a major piece of legislation passed without one vote from the other party....what  change?

8.  Health Care reform...every american will be covered (as opposed to Hillary's plan), and we'll reduce the  skyrocketing costs, and you can keep your existing plan and Dr. 

...the administration has already admitted that costs will go up, and only half of the 15% without insurance will  be covered. Insurance companies are opting out of health insurance and the administration is busily granting  waivers to it's law even before it takes effect....what change?

….Just asking

The Old Man

The Longest War

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations"

~ George W. Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign

Americans recognize a grim anniversary this month as the war that began in Afghanistan in October 2001 becomes the longest war in our history.  (Depending on who's counting; the Vietnam war arguably started with the authorization of conventional forces to fight North Vietnam in 1964, and withdrawal about nine years later.)

It's difficult to say whether or not the originally-stated goals of the invasion have been met.  But it seems to me that whether we failed or succeeded, the mission is over.  If 30,000 conventional U.S. troops and special forces haven't bumped into a 6-foot 6-inch man (taller, if you include the turban) attached to two kidney dialysis machines after nine years, they aren't going to find him in another nine years.

Some argue that we have to keep troops in Afghanistan until the Taliban are defeated.  I disagree, for four reasons: 

(1) The Taliban no longer pose any plausible threat to us.  According to a de-classified report, the Taliban view Al-Qaeda as a "handicap".  They have no plans to attack Americans outside of Afghanistan. 

(2)  There is no military solution to the Taliban.  The Afghan leadership realizes this, and so do our own generals.  Since 2007 the military has admitted the insurgency is winning.  The de-classified report says they can sustain themselves "indefinitely".  We simply cannot kill everyone living in Afghanistan who subscribes to fundamentalist Islam or hates foreign occupation.  Nor do we have any right to try.  American violence has proved as likely to kill the people we are "protecting", and boost recruitment for the insurgency, as anything else.  One U.S. officer said to his troops, referring to shootings by convoys and checkpoints: "There are stories after stories about how these people are turned into insurgents”.  Gen. McChrystal said: “We have shot an amazing number of people [this year], but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.”

(3) The report I cited notes that the Taliban's main focus is to be part of a legitimate government; to win the population by providing security and protection.  Their "main effort" is not violence but an information campaign.  So the "grand peace jirga" proposed by President Karzai really could result in a peaceful compromise.  Perhaps Taliban regions will get some autonomy from the central government in Kabul.  As Sec. of State Clinton said, "You don't make peace with your friends".

(4) The cost, in dollars and blood.  Enough said.

President Obama said he intends to begin withdrawing combat forces in 2011, but his actions, and the consensus of the American and British establishment, cast doubt on this promise.  Since taking office, Obama has escalated the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 and continued the construction of massive, permanent bases all over the country. 

Why do both political parties favor continuing the war in Afghanistan?  What are we doing over there?

I think the reasons are pretty openly stated.  Two of the five goals of U.S. policy in Central Asia, according to State Department testimony to Congress, are "to increase the development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes", and "to foster competitive market economies".

What is meant by "diversification"?  The State Dept. official is not using the word in the ordinary sense, since it is U.S. policy to discourage pipelines through Russia or our "energy competitor" Iran, even though such natural arrangements would diversify the region's supply routes.  In this context, "diversification" means less control by the regional governments sitting on top of the resources, and greater control by foreign governments and businesses friendly to the U.S.

Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, said in April 2006:

"Energy: as you know, we have worked long and hard on various pipelines from Central Asia ... we are working with international financial institutions, working with U.S. investors ...  we are working with the Central Asian nations and Afghanistan to lower regional trade and investment barriers."

Again, this official is using highly technical language.  By "lower barriers", he means lower barriers for us; but we want to raise barriers for people we don't like (the Russians, the Iranians).

The Afghanistan war, then, is like the younger Iraq war, of which Alan Greenspan said:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

It's instructive to consider the fact -- at least in my reading of history -- that industrialized empires tend to lie to themselves in order to justify their power-plays.  Japan insisted its invasion of China was in order to protect thousands of Japanese citizens from instability.  Britain's greatest intellectuals talked of bringing civilization, order, and enlightenment to India, even though everyone today knows perfectly well India was dominated to secure markets for the Empire.  Today, Americans can swallow the idea that our military occupation of Afghanistan is to protect women from Islamists, even though these self-sacrificing motivations appear nowhere in our government's stated policies, outside the rhetoric of politicians and magazines stirring up public opinion.

So, in a sense, this is the same war to ensure access to resources, markets, trade routes, and cheap labor that has been fought by the U.S. for centuries, and by every great power for millenia.  This is not just the longest war in American history.  This is the longest war in human history.

Fox News - the most trusted name in truthiness

Most Americans -- 61% -- do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution [1]. In July 2009, an astonishing 58% of Republicans were not sure/doubted Obama was born in the United States [2].  In February 2002, a full 57% of Americans believed Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda, 22% believed WMD had been found in Iraq, and 56% believed world opinion favored the Iraq war or was divided evenly -- all of which was demonstrably false at the time [3].

So perhaps it should not be too surprising that Glenn Beck is America's second most beloved TV personality (next to Oprah Winfrey) and that 49% of Americans say they trust Fox News -- a better score than any other TV news channel.  Politico reports:

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.” 

This conclusion is backed up by a breakdown of the poll:  74% of Republicans said they trust Fox News, while only 30% of Democrats said they did. 

The thing about Fox News is that it has a severe case of all the usual TV news biases, plus a very strong ideological bias.  In recent years, MSNBC has tried to mimic the success of FN by becoming its leftist alter-ego.  But Fox News still stands out by the way its coverage distorts the facts and misinforms its viewers, in the service of its conservative ideology.  It even misinforms its viewers of the fact that it has an ideological bent.

An NBC poll found that whereas half the general public was misinformed, the overwhelming majority of Fox News viewers were misinformed about the proposed health insurance legislation:

In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

All of these perceptions are demonstrably false, as shown by nonpartisan fact-checking groups.  (The proposed health insurance legislation would not cover illegal immigrants, it would not lead to "a government takeover of health care" or taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and Sarah Palin's fantasy about death panels was Politifact.com's "lie of the year".  Congratulations on your award, Sarah.  No wonder Fox News hired you.)

You might think the NBC poll is untrustworthy.  Fair enough.  Let's go back to the original poll which found Fox News to be the most trusted network.  Here's what that polling organization had to say:

Denham said he had first-hand experience of Fox News's value judgments.

His firm had conducted a poll that produced some strikingly poor results for the Democrats in terms of their popularity ratings. At exactly the same time Fox News commissioned its own internal poll, which came up with more favourable results for the Democrats, yet the network decided to go with PPP's results rather than its own.

"That showed me that when they have the opportunity to go with something more negative about the Democrats, they will."

A 2003 study from the U. of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to have factually untrue beliefs which were crucial to their support of the Iraq war.  Here is just one example from the study [3]:

The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions....—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.

...

When asked whether the US has found “clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization,” among the combined sample for the three-month period 49% said that such evidence had been found. This misperception was substantially higher among those who get their news primarily from Fox—67%. Once again the NPR-PBS audience was the lowest at 16%.

The Columbia Journalism Review (which has been critical of liberal bias in the mainstream media), reports:

The [leaked, internal] memo informed Fox news employees to “be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress,” and “just because Dems won, the war on terror isn’t over.”

The CJR also reported the "fourth-grade-style doctoring of pictures" of NYT employees to make them look ugly, and misleading coverage designed to implicate al-Qaeda or illegal immigrants in the California wildfires on "Fox and Friends".

The fact that Fox News has a pro-Republican ideology and misleads its viewers should not be surprising.  After all, Rupert Murdoch has said openly that he used his media empire to try to influence public opinion in favor of the Iraq war.  That doesn't sound like "We report, you decide" to me.  And keep in mind, this is a guy who made his fortune peddling vulgar tabloids. 

Roger Ailes, founder and president of Fox News, worked for decades as media consultant for Republican campaigns, including the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Guliani campaigns.  He also produced Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show.  Progressive media watchdog FAIR reports [4]: 

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, ... he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93).

Here is what one Murdoch family member said recently about Fox News president Roger Ailes [5]:

Earlier this month the PR executive Matthew Freud, who is married to Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, told the New York Times he was "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards".

Tony Snow, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes, John Gibson, Laura Ingram -- almost all the Fox News mainstays have worked for the Republican party or were contributors to conservative publications.  The "liberal" commentators on FN are often, in fact, quite conservative or moderate.  FAIR goes into great detail on this and I challenge anyone to dispute its facts [4].  FAIR has done quantitative studies of Fox News' ideological bias, and here is just a taste [6]:

Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

Call FAIR untrustworthy if you like, but you'll have a harder time dismissing The Pew Research Center.  Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded in their annual 2005 report :

Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. ... In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far.... Those findings seem to challenge Fox's promotional marketing, particularly its slogan, "We Report. You Decide."

The report added:

Some observers might argue that opinions clearly offered as such are more honest than a slant subtly embedded in the sound bites selected or questions asked. But that was not the case here. Given the live formats on cable, the opinions of reporters and anchors are often embedded in questions or thrown in as asides. Only occasionally were they labeled as commentary.

In the UK, this is actually illegal.  You can't claim "We report, you decide" and then have your reporters constantly injecting personal opinions and half-truths into their reports.  That is why Fox News was investigated in the UK for violating its TV news misinformation laws.  And that is why Fox News is now banned there.  CNN, the BBC, and Al-Jazeera English are not (watch it before judging it).

As if this wasn't enough proof that Fox News misinforms its viewers, here are just a few specific examples:

• Watch a montage of the blatant FN promotion of the Tea Party protests.  This is from media watchdog Media Matters for America, an admitted progressive outfit.  Fox News tried to exaggerate the number of protesters and even spliced footage from a different event to make it look bigger.  Oops.

• Well-known liar Jerome Corsi was invited on Hannity & Colmes on multiple occasions ahead of the release of his book The Obama Nation.  The book is full of demonstrable lies.  One might expect a hard-hitting objective news channel to alert its viewers.  Instead, I watched Sean Hannity say proudly "We launched it right here on this program" (referring to Corsi's book).  Would a neutral and trustworthy news channel "launch" a dishonest smear book against one candidate during the heat of a political campaign?

• Fox News "broke" the false story that Obama was educated at an Islamic madrassah in Indonesia.  It was based on a conservative blog.  Oops.

• While visiting my parents, I once saw FN play -- for the second time -- a full six-and-a-half minute segment satirizing Obama as "the blessed child".  That's not news, that's propaganda, and two 6.5 minute segments is an enormous block of time.  This was all in July, right in the heat of the presidential race. 

• A self-confessed "Liberal Viewer" demonstrates pretty convincingly that Fox News basically trashed Kurt Vonnegut right after his death .  He also shows how FN edited out a follow-up question in order to make it look like Obama was contradicting himself during the 2009 Democratic primaries.  Liberal Viewer makes the same point I'm making:  Fox News has all the biases and flaws of all major media, plus an ideological bias and a consistent tendency to distort the facts in order to serve this ideology.  (Check out LiberalViewer's over 100 examples of Fox News bias and judge for yourself.)

• Look at this "interview" with a representative from Greenpeace.  How can anyone watch this juvenile attack piece and call it serious journalism?  To his credit, the Greenpeace rep. did a great job sticking to calm logic and reason.  Meanwhile, the Fox news-actress and her obnoxious male side-kick were acting buffoonishly, desperately attempting to frame environmentalists as silly loons, who barge in on us in the bathroom.  Their goal is to give viewers a misperception of the issue.

[1] Gallup poll, Feb 2009
[2] Politico.com 

[3] University of Maryland, "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War" 2003

[4] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

[5] The Guardian, Jan 2010

[6] FAIR

Obama: The First Year

Obama: The First Year

Why don't we rate the President based on what he said he would do, and what he said got him elected.

1) I'll end the war in Iraq in 16 months and bring the troops home.

Peak troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Iraq Afghanistan total time period
Bush: 160,000 26,000 186,000 2007 to early 2008
Obama: 124,000 65,000 189,000 October 2009

U.S deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan:
2008 (Last year of Bush): 466
2009 (first year of Obama): 450 (plus 30 in January 2010)
Source : DoD
…doesn't look like much of an antiwar president, does he?

2) I'll reach across the aisle and put an end to partisan politics…and usher in the post partisan era.

Partisanship is the worst it has ever been, and the whine that "they wouldn't let me be non partisan" only evokes the question "who is the leader who said he could get both parties to work together?". It should be embarrassing that the President, with a super majority, couldn't get one major piece of legislation enacted. He didn't need any Republican votes…so how can the Republicans be what stopped him…and why couldn't his great non partisan approach get at least a few Republican votes? No major legislation has been passed without some votes from the other party, yet Obama is the only president unable to influence even one vote. Some "post partisan" era.

3) I'll close Gitmo within the first year of my presidency.

Don't look now, but we're entering month thirteen, and the president hasn't released any more prisoners than President Bush did (and it's still open).

4) Transparency…no more back room meetings….the American people deserve to know what deals are being cut, and who's cutting them. I'll have CSPAN in meetings/negotiations.

The president didn't allow CSPAN to the myriad deal cutting negotiations with special interest groups, but he did drag the cameras to his meeting with Republicans. Pretty sorry performance here.

5) No more Earmarks

Except for the record number in his first year…pretty funny, if it weren't so serious.

6) No lobbyists will be welcome in my administration.

They may not be welcome, but they're there…17 at last count (with Goldman Sachs well represented as well). And read this…"The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes." Fred Baldassano, Obama Treasury Dep't Senior Advisor writing to a list of K Street Lobbyists. Does anybody else smell dead fish?

7)I'll get the deficits under control, and cut them in half by 2012

In one year, our new president has increased the deficit almost as much as all the president before him combined (I know, I know, he inherited a mess and there is nothing he can do about it).

A change president? An anti war president? A post partisan president? As they say, I'm just reporting the facts…you decide. (Sure, there are plenty of excuses to be made for failure, I'm just reporting on performance).

The Old Man
P.S. You won't see this on O'Reilly…it would be too impolite.

Your very own personal soapbox

Whether you agree with Freyguy or merely disagree with The Old Man, we want to hear your take on the most important and not-beaten-to-death issues of the day.  We'll even give you a hand dismounting your high-horse so you can clamber onto your soapbox.

There is now a list of Recent Comments on the sidebar, with links, which will help keep track of ongoing discussions.

For advice on how to easily view or post comments, see the updated
link on the sidebar under Menu, How to view and post comments.

Panic in Washington DC

There is panic in the Congress and the White House today. Polls show that the Senate race in Massachusetts is a toss up, and a Republican could take a seat owned (by divine right) by the Democrats. This would not only be sacrilege, but would take away a filibuster proof Senate majority. This means the Senate might have to discuss and DEBATE the Health Care Manifesto. It would have to be discussed on the Senate floor...where C-SPAN is allowed, and the American people could see it. Why,...why...that might even cause... TRANSPARENCY!
Put the Haitian catastrophe on hold, put the war in Afghanistan on hold, put the economic "crisis" on hold,...our President is headed to Massachusetts to deal with a major crisis, and quell the panic in Washington DC.

The Old Man

Mr. President, was Joe Wilson right?

There is no question that Representative Joe Wilson was rude and out of order when he shouted out "you lie!". But now, Mr. President, you must answer a more important question about his conduct...was he rude and out of order...but right? You are on tape numerous times telling the American people that the conference discussions about the health care legislation should be transparent, "on C-SPAN "...and would be in your administration. You said that the American people had a right to see what deals were being made, and what constituents favored. Yet, up to this moment, you sit silently condoning Ms. Pelosi's derisive dismissal of any such thing.

Were you sincere, Mr. President...were you telling the truth about your commitment to "transparency"? Or was Joe Wilson right?

The Old Man