Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Blackman on a White Horse

This week a quartet of New York Times leading liberal pundits, in concert, signaled dismay over Obama's inability to command in a crises; they were Dowd, Krugman, Friedman and Rich.

About the only one of these who I read with any avidness is Maureen Dowd who has a delightfully wicked way driving her points home. The Krugman-Friedmans remind me of spoiled children: always looking for attention and who will say or write anything to get it. They are seldom right, but are furiously loquacious; perhaps like that stopped clock, are right predictably twice in a 24 hour period.

Frank Rich has one intellect that counterbalances the other three collectively on the brain scale. He comes to political punditry from the colorful world of theatrical criticism. So, from time his thoughts become entangled in the baroque under brush of too much knowledge. He is more a theorist than a propagandist; certainly not man of the streets, especially when you wander off those of NY, NY.

By now, much to the dismay of many who elected Obama, they find that the new president is suffering from the same economic and national security demons that drove GW Bush over the edge. It is as if the US Presidency is an empty charade of power with inaugurations, black limo parades and glowing White House scenes; all with the clutter of pomp and circumstance. It is a media creation. If this is the case, then where is the locus of power since it is obviously not in Mr Obama's grasp?

The new President's problems began the moment he made decisions for his personal White House Staff and transition team. Apart from a few campaign loyalists like Axelrod, he moved full force to the Clintonista camp, accepting all its dreadful baggage with its failed morality.

His choice of Emanuel as chief of staff was his first major mistake as it brought the immediate Israel penetration to his administration; further, Emanuel unwittingly ensnared Obama in the Blagojevich affair that brought US attorney Fitzgerald riding to the President's rescue. This odious affair will return to the Obama doorstep as Chicago corruption issues come to trial.

Soon Obama bought into the Bush Iraq War plan. He decided to send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan; it still is unknown how this augmentation fits into a war strategic plan. His national security plan smacks of GW Bush on steroids. His national tab in Iraq is still 10 billion USD a month. Even the Turks offered to let him withdraw through Turkey to get him out of Iraq quicker.

Obama's economic team was almost seamlessly transfered from Bush Inc. – sans Paulson; it has the same Wall street players, bankers, back door deals, sweet heart contacts with those with whom the Republicans were previously imbedded. Bailout money for bonuses was paid to those who squandered the money to include a high percent of foreigners. All this was done with the approval of Democratic congressional and Obama's White House leadership.

There does not seem to be much difference from the Obama and Bush regimes for the average American. On one hand the Americans looked to a bumbling Texas Redneck to follow or, for now, a mixed racial urban super-fly politician. For Americans the national elections are a flip of a coin, but it is tails you lose and heads you fail to win.

With the advent of Obama, it is already obvious that power lies outside the two-party system, and is found in a conglomerate of military-industrial government bureaucracy, state capitalism, big business and bankers. Otherwise how can the spasmodic pursuit of war in Iraq and Afghanistan be explained? How can Obama’s impulsive acceptance of the Bush bailout and stimulus packages, which protected failed business and rewarded incompetence, be explained? Even more surprising is Obama’s failure to pursue war crimes of the past administration, even as former VEEP Cheney madly rubs his nose in the Bush torture regimes.

This one-world globalization, super national, modus operandi is beginning to frazzle as Mexican drug cartels invade our western border states. The Chinese are now determinedly asking about a new world currency to replace the dollar. Throughout this deteriorating situation, fund managers rake in billions of dollars.

Not only are Obama's liberal pals at the NYT disappointed, but the country in general is beginning to wonder where he intends to ride the White Horse of Change that was mandated to him. Even worse, some wonder whether he knows how to ride that horse at all.

Obama's last appeal, his ace in the hole, is to remind the American people just how big a jerk Mr. GW Bush was as president. Colonel Robert E Bartos USA Ret.

3 Comments:

Anonymous stats said...

Very well written, but my comment is, "D'uh!"

Are you truly surprised by any of this? I think Obama made it clear early on in his campaign that he would in essence be no different than Bush. Oh, yeah, Pro-aborts love him because he is willing to unleash the dogs on more fetuses, but everyting else is more of the same. Because both parties are wholly owned and operated by the same folk.

21:57  
Anonymous wir said...

"power lies outside the two-party system, and is found in a conglomerate of military-industrial government bureaucracy, state capitalism, big business and bankers." I disagree. Rather, the two party system, first and foremost, represents the interests of the military industrial complex, big business, etc, no matter who's in power. "Otherwise how can the spasmodic pursuit of war in Iraq and Afghanistan be explained?" One word: bipartisanship. "How can Obama’s impulsive acceptance of the Bush bailout and stimulus packages, which protected failed business and rewarded incompetence, be explained?" Again, bipartisanship, the two party state represents the interests of the bankers and big business. And finally, why no "prosecutions"? Bipartisan comity, senior congressional Democrats are complicit in these crimes.

11:12  
Anonymous PIZZABOY said...

Wir in disagreeing with Col. Bartos I believe you only strengthened his point. "Military-industrial government bureaucracy, state capitalism, big business & bankers" as opposed to "the 2 party system"
This is akin to asking which came first the chicken or the egg? They are one & the same for Petes'sake.

13:59  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home