Owning up to our sins

Craig Crawford at the Congressional Quarterly offers the most compelling reason to release the so-called torture photos — which President Barack Obama has decided to keep hidden:

If the point is to learn the lessons of the past by not concealing or denying the past, perhaps it is best to face the horrors of what was done.

The argument that releasing torture photos puts us at risk by encouraging more terrorism seems phony to me. It’s just an excuse to pretend it didn’t happen.

Transparency brings honor in this case, despite the short-term embarrassment.

A new day dawns

.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;}

Barack Obama is now president of the United States.

And with his swearing in just a little while ago, we have a clean break with the failures not only of the last eight years but of the last 40 — at least rhetorically.

The new president, in offering the traditional inaugural address, made it plain that the nation faces serious challenges —

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

But also that we are not defined by these circumstances, that these “indicators of crisis” and the “sapping of confidence across our land,” the “nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights,” can and will be met by a renewed sense of purpose.

Obama, in his nearly 20-minute address, proclaimed “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics” and called on the nation and its politicians to “set aside childish things.”

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

The United States he described is a resilient one that has allowed itself to become complacent, one that has been all too willing to proclaim its own greatness as its leaders protect their own “narrow interests.” It is a time that has “surely passed.”

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to
meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

I would add: “We have no choice.”

We’ve spent too many years tied to the false promise of conservatism, to the ideology that paints government as the problem, to politicians who have tossed average Americans into the river of uncertainty while they work diligently on behalf of the campaign contributors and business interests that have sold the nation that same river.

The failure of the financial system, the erosion of our manufacturing base and our transformation into a service culture, the never-ending movement of jobs overseas, the widening gulf between the rich and the middle class and poor, the slow death of our cities and — despite the historic ascension for the first time of an African-American to the presidency — the seemingly intractable and worsening resegregation of American society stand as a testament to the failure of the the conservative creed and a fractured party system that does little more than engender conflict.

Obama said called it “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long,” adding that they “no longer apply.”

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

You can read this as a rebuke of the Bush administration — as it surely is. But it also is a rebuke of the Clinton years and every presidency going back to Nixon. The last time we had a president who truly focused on improving the lives of everyone was Lyndon Johnson (civil rights legislation, the Great Society war on poverty), who managed to squander his political capital on the war in Vietnam and doom a surprisingly progressive agenda.

Obama also signaled a break on foreign policy, though not as much of a break as is needed. He talked of American ideals and the charter (i.c., the Constitution and Bill of Rights) that “assure(s) the rule of law and the rights of man” and that cannot be relinquished “for expedience’s sake.”

He also spoke of alliances, telling the rest of the world that “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.”

Again, it was a stirring rebuke and rebirth — but still tinged with a dangerous edge of American exceptionalism, that elevates the United States above other nations. To be sure, he calls on us to temper ouir power with our humility:

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

In the end, what was most stirring about the speech was Obama’s recognition that “our patchwork heritage is a strength (and) not a weakness.”

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

To that I can only add, amen.

Militarized zone

Josh Marshall describes the basic problem with viewing the presidency only through the commander-in-chief lens, call its use as a substitute for president “novel and in many ways pernicious”:

(T)he growing use of the term in this sense is an effective barometer of the progressive militarization of our concept of the presidency and our government itself.

We see it here in its semantic form but we can observe its concrete effect in the Bush administration’s claims of almost absolute presidential power well outside of war-fighting — almost as if the president is a kind of warlord simultaneously directing the military and the civilian governments with similar fiat powers.

Marshall then reminds us just how wrongheaded this is, and how it contradicts the founders’ intent.

(T)he point of the constitution’s explicitly giving the president the title of commander-in-chief was not to make him into a quasi-military figure. It was precisely the opposite — to create no doubt that the armed forces answered not to a chief of staff or senior general or even a Secretary of Defense (originally, Secretaries of War and Navy) but to a civilian elected officeholder who operates with the constrained and limited power of that world rather than the unbound authority of military command.

That’s something the next president needs to remember.

Bush’s gas games

http://www.cbs.com/thunder/swf/rcpHolderCbs-prod.swf

The president once again entered the fray yesterday, offering an ineffectual but wholly political response to the gas-price crisis, ending a nearly two-decade ban on off-shore oil and natural gas exploration.

The president, who just last month joined with the leaders of other industrialized nations in pledging to curb greenhouse gases, said the move would expand domestic oil production and help drive down prices.

The problem, the president says, is that the Democrats in Congress have stymied every effort he has made.

Those efforts, of course, have focused solely on drilling in environmentally sensitive areas combined with the most modest of nods toward energy conservation or alternative fuels.

Which brings us to yesterday’s announcement, which when assessed honestly can only be viewed as the president using his office to alter political conditions as the presidential election — an election that will choose his successor — moves through the summer. It is no accident that the president’s proposal matches John McCain’s call for a lifting of the moratorium — a policy position at odds with previous McCain positions.

Anyone who doubts this needs to read this quotation from the president:

To reduce pressure on prices we must continue to implement good conservation policies, and we need to increase the supply of oil, especially here at home. For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal — and now Americans are paying at the pump. When members of Congress were home over the Fourth of July recess, they heard a clear message from their constituents: We need to take action now to expand domestic oil production.

One of the most important steps we can take to expand American oil production is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or what’s called the OCS. But Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Experts believe that these restricted areas of the OCS could eventually produce nearly 10 years’ worth of America’s current annual oil production. And advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.

He was much more brief and direct, later in his brief announcement:

With this action, the executive branch’s restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.

The reality, of course, is that off-shore oil exploration offers no guarantees. And even if it was a given that it would produce the volume of oil the administration and McCain believe — which wouldn’t happen for at least a decade — there are no guarantees that it would have the desired effect on prices.

Consider this (received via e-mail) from U.S. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.:

Republicans claim the Bush/McCain coastline oil drilling plan will reduce gas prices. It will not:

  • 811,000 barrels per day is how much Americans have reduced its consumption of oil because of high gas prices — despite this, gas prices are still at record levels.[1]
  • 500,000 barrels per day is how much Saudi Arabia has upped production in recent weeks – despite this, gas prices are still at record levels.[2]
  • 200,000 barrels per day, according to President Bush’s Energy Information Agency, is how much oil the Republican plan to drill along the West, East, and Gulf Coasts will result in once full production is reached in 2030.[3]
  • If a more than 800,000 barrel per day reduction in demand coupled with a 500,000 barrel per day production increase does not reduce gas prices today, then how would adding 200,000 barrels per day to the market in 2030 reduce gas prices now or ever?
  • Even that is a “best-case” scenario for the Bush/McCain coastline drilling plan. In reality, it will likely not result even in 200,000 barrels per day in production. More likely, it would result in production of less than 50,000 barrels per day:

  • The plan requires consent by the Governor of the state in whose waters drilling will commence. It is doubtful that California, Oregon, or Washington will ever allow approval new drilling along the West Coast.
  • The Bush/McCain drilling plan will not open up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling (even though this area has considerable oil resources and is the only offshore location with the infrastructure in place to begin oil production within a decade).
  • The remaining 20% of OCS oil on the Atlantic Coast amounts to less than 50,000 barrels per day in 2030 – this is less oil than the United States consumes in 4 minutes or the world consumes in one minute – a truly miniscule amount.
  • I understand that this argument comes from a Democrat, but I think it offers a line of reasoning that has to be acknowledged. Why sacrifice the coastline and the Arctic refuge in an effort to maintain the status quo, or to return to last year’s status quo — one we knew was untenable in the first place?

    Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is correct in his response:

    “If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” the Obama campaign’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said in a statement. “But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years.”

    The New York Times adds this, in today’s editorial:

    Offshore drilling will not bring short-term relief from $4-a-gallon gasoline, nor can it play much more than a marginal role in any long-term strategy for energy independence. The oil companies already have access to substantial unexplored resources.

    The reality, as well, is that we have done little to move away from oil as a primary energy source, thanks to the heavy lobbying by the oil industry.

    That has to change. Opening the coast to drilling won’t help.

    It is time to kick the oil companies and speculators out of the driver’s seat on energy policy. They’ve been behind the wheel too long and are ready to drive us all off a cliff.

    Another voice for impeachment

    From ABC News’ Political Punch:

    Congressman Robert Wexler, D-Fla. — the Florida co-chair for the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — today announced that he has signed on to support the Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, introduced this week by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

    “President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power,” Wexler said. “A decision by Congress to pursue impeachment is not an option, it is a sworn duty. It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this Administration. Our Founding Fathers bestowed upon Congress the power of impeachment, and it is now time that we use it to defend the rule of law from this corrupt Administration.”

    Here are Kucinich’s 35 counts and a video of him reading them in Congress.