Some of the things listed I do think are mistakes on the part of the Obama Administration, such as not pushing hard enough for a robust public option on health care. At the very least, allowing the federal government to negotiate deals with Big Pharma would certainly have gone a long way toward reducing medical costs, particularly for seniors.
Let's take one example from the website. It announces, "Eased restrictions on the use of child soldiers in Africa". Now, that sounds pretty awful. As with all the other banners, there is a link provided for the source of the allegation. In this case, the link is to Foreign Policy, a story from October 26, written by Josh Rogin.
On Monday, the Obama administration waived sections of a law meant to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers in Africa, paving the way for new military cooperation with four countries with poor human rights records -- despite their use of underage troops.Let's think about this story for a moment. What has the President actually done? He has done nothing more than made clear, as provided by statute, that it is in our national interest to work with four separate states that have, or do, use child soldiers. None of these countries will make my top 10 places to live, for any number of reasons.
"I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the [Child Service Prevention Act]," President Obama wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Yet, I have to wonder. How, exactly, has what Obama done in any way "eased restrictions on the use of child soldiers"? Last time I checked, these four countries, generally speaking, are sovereign entities. The United States respects the sovereignty of other nations. So what does the law do?
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the law, which prohibits U.S. military education and training, foreign military financing, and other defense-related assistance to countries that actively recruit troops under the age of 18. Countries are designated as violators if the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report identifies them as recruiting child soldiers.Now, in what way has the United States pursued any policies of military education and training, military assistance and financing with these four? Other than starting to work with Yemen on their Al Qaeda problem, I'm not quite sure. Beyond that, it is hyperbole to claim that Pres. Obama, by writing a memo, is effecting a change in the military recruitment policies of other countries.
So, this is kind of, well, you know, wrong.
More to the point, scrolling through the list, you come up against issues or positions taken that are, at the very least defensible, or perhaps sensible, or about which reasonable persons can disagree. Going a step or three further, certain legislation and policies pursued and supported by Pres. Obama have done a great deal of good. The remarkable achievement of the previous Congress is its success rate despite the unanimous opposition of the Republican minority and concerted efforts of conservative Democrats to undermine the majority legislative agenda.
I will take this one or two steps further, however. Every Administration in our history, by the standard being applied here, is a dismal failure. George Washington broke treaties with the Iroquois. John Adams actively supported and enforced the Alien and Sedition Act. Andrew Jackson? Guilty of genocide. Abraham Lincoln? Writ of habeas corpus suspended, plus responsible as Commander-in-Chief for more deaths than any other in our history. Teddy Roosevelt was a war-mongering bigot who talked a good game against the Trusts but didn't really bust all that many. FDR? Three words - Japanese Internment Camps.
I am not suggesting that everything the President has done, or failed to do, receives my lavish support. On the contrary. Also, it is good to remember there are things that we need to do, issues concerning which we need to hold the Administration accountable. All the same, it is the tone, both of Glenn Greenwald as well as the website in question, that makes me mad. With his pose as "principled critic" of all Administrations, it is quite simply impossible for any Administration ever to live up to the Constitution. Exigencies of the moment occasionally make demands upon our time and interests that force us to do things we might not otherwise do. Furthermore, while I appreciate the reasons for a law limiting our relations with nations that recruit and use child soldiers, to claim that, by waiving parts of the law in question, in full accordance with that law, President Obama makes it easier for any of these countries to recruit child soldiers is just crap. Period.
I have no problem being critical of the President, as I have been so many, many times. Posing on the pinnacle of moral purity and pronouncing judgment, without the full weight of evidence, let alone the experience necessary to really judge, really just pisses me off. I'm quite tired of it.