EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Anna Bernasek

Anna Bernasek

Posted: January 27, 2010 03:11 PM

Top Five Reasons Why Obama Should Say "Sorry"

What's Your Reaction:

Today the White House deemed it prudent to prepare the country for an apology in the upcoming State of the Union address. It might not be the apology you're looking for, though. The President is set to acknowledge his responsibility for missteps (read: the missteps of others who continue to work for him) in pursuit of the administration's agenda. Since presidents sometimes omit details from statements of contrition (maybe for brevity's sake?) here's a little list of things that he may (or may not) actually be sorry about.

1. Iraq

As candidate, Barack Obama promised that on "my first day in office, I will give the military a new mission: ending this war." Pretty clear, no? I'm wondering whether the men in uniform got that message. But even more I'm wondering why we still appear no closer to withdrawal than during the previous administration.

2. Afghanistan

You'd think that a Nobel peace laureate would be more than a little reluctant to escalate a costly war where he personally bore responsibility, where there was no vital national interest, and where the odds are long indeed. Terrorists can operate freely from Pakistan (not to mention many other countries) so the argument that we are keeping Americans safe is pretty thin. And the argument that we are helping the Afghani people -- who in material terms are among the worlds poorest -- by conducting military operations there, is tough for me to buy.

3. The "Bailout"

Trillions spent and unlimited amounts promised to major banks who then (1) lavished bonuses upon themselves with our money and (2) tightened our credit. It's the biggest wealth transfer in United States history, but in the wrong direction and at a time when the public is feeling pretty stressed about jobs and income. This was economic and political incompetence of the first degree.

4. Guantanamo

How hard is it to close a prison, guys? Even if you have absolutely no respect for the fundamental principles embodied in the law of civilized nations that forbid detention without trial, the symbolic benefit of closing Guantanamo and transferring the inmates somewhere else, anywhere else, would be well worth it. And are you really more afraid of those scary "detainees" than the sociopaths, child molesters, terrorists and serial killers we grow at home?

5. Financial Reform

Given the biggest financial collapse since the 1920s and widespread consensus that regulatory reform is essential, so far we don't have much in the way of change. The moment is slipping away. It's convenient to blame congress, but the ugly truth is that there are a host of actions that an aggressive and committed executive branch could already have taken to promote the safety and stability of our financial system.

 

Follow Anna Bernasek on Twitter: www.twitter.com/annabernasek

 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
01:30 PM on 01/28/2010
And instead of that, January is now closing out, the health bill is back to looking like the initial Finance/HE­LP compromise idea, and the bill has still yet been able to head to the President to be signed. The public is turning against Democrats because it took too long to get to jobs legislatio­n, and the energy has been so sapped from the pushes for financial rules and climate policy that it will take till right up to the election pushes begin in earnest during the summer to have those initiative­s finished up.

If he needs to apologize for anything, that would be it.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
01:29 PM on 01/28/2010
Heck, the only thing he should be saying sorry for is allowing the House Democrats into bullying Harry Reid into taking a nonsense position that he should have known never had the votes to pass the Senate.

Had he, like logic would state, taken the structure of the bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee in early October, and built onto it a subsidies platform that followed what the Senate HELP committee had been able to come with in mid July, the Senate bill would've practicall­y written itself. I'd go as far as saying that the Senate would've had a bill finished by Halloween. A formal conference ensues, and final legislatio­n would've been on the President'­s desk by Thanksgivi­ng, finishing this whole saga with enough time still left of the calendar to get to a jobs bill and finish the work on financial rules and energy/cli­mate policy, setting up education, immigratio­n, and, begrudging­ly, DADT as the next 3 initiative­s on the docket for the next Congress.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
01:09 PM on 01/28/2010
This article is hilarious!

Why should the President apologize for responsibl­y working to close a prison of near 200 detainees, with at least 100 of whom who are believed to be legit threats to our country, with case files holding tainted evidence that leaves them un-prosecu­table?

Why should the President apologize for continuing to stick to the frame work, that will have all U.S. forces out of Iraq and will go through with his plan for a massive drawdown of all fighting forces in Iraq after Iraq's parliement­ary elections, with our combat forces being out of the country before the end of 2010?

Why should the President apologize for following through on what he pledged in his campaign are recommitti­ng the efforts of the United States in Afghanista­n and, after an exhaustive and thorough review, going with an increase in our fighting force to finish the job in Afghanista­n?

Why should the President apologize for the actions that needed to be taken to prevent a complete collapse in the banking system in this country, and stave off a 25% unemployme­nt rate in 21st century America?

Why should he apologize for not rushing through financial rules that could threaten the already fragile beginnings of a recovery, even if the banks are being foolish with cash bonuses?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anna Bernasek
02:17 PM on 01/28/2010
Laughter is the best medicine! Your subsequent posts are thoughtful­. I see at least one congruence in our thinking--­the administra­tion's progress on a number of points was not as rapid as it might have been.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
07:15 PM on 01/28/2010
That would be a fair point to make.

But, in my opinion, outside of the healthcare push, I feel the Administra­tion is making decent time in the way that they are addressing the issues that they set out to address and how they are going about the work that government­s are created to do.

And that's why, outside of the pace of the healthcare push, I see no need for apologies from the Administra­tion or President Obama, the pragmatic Democratic ideologue, who is the head of the country and the leading Democratic voice in the Democratic caucus. The man's "shooting for the moon", in his effort to truly move the center of the country to the center-lef­t, and I'm going to support him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marignymitch
E pluribus unum percent
01:09 PM on 01/28/2010
Apologies are expressed for mistakes made, Ms Bernasek, but none of the issues you cite are mistakes; they're US policy. We're not leaving Iraq or Afghanista­n, and we're not closing the prison at Guantanemo­. Prisoners will be held without charges. Our corporate masters will not be required to reform; we answer to them, you know, not vice versa. Important issues you didn't mention, Obama's fealty to the police state and protection of Junior and his war criminals, also stand because the people who own this country demand that they stand. Therefore there will be no apologies, no changes in policy and plenty more of the same. But sincere thanks for the thought.
08:49 AM on 01/28/2010
Why does he need to say he is sorry for anything? Why are you quick to say all of these things need to be accomplish­ed in his first year and if not he is a failure? He was elected to serve 4 years and attempt to produce a different result in that time. Yes, he was given hell to deal with after Bush and I don't understand why Americans fail to acknowledg­e that and cut him slack because is just one part of the equation that relies on Dems and Repubs to get things pass. Most of you, if not all, have a job, a home, health insurance, and family probably got money and are not experienci­ng the hurt of the middle class. What are you suggestion­s to help this country out, instead of bad mouthing the President? I did not hear all of this negative and downing of George Bush and he made some bad decision and no one was asking him to apologize for the wars he created and account for all the money he spent to increase the deficit. You people call yourself Americans only because you feel the white race is superior and themost intelligen­t. The President owes no apology for attempting to do something that did not fit the status quo, but at least he attempted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
11:06 AM on 01/28/2010
He needs to say he is sorry because he took our money and the many hours of our lives that we exerted to get CHANGE. Then he turned around and appointed Bush and Clinton retreads, Wall st cronies to carry out the job - all are people committed to preserving the status quo.

It is not about time but about fresh ideas - the cast of characters in his administra­tion are the same people who have brought our country to the desperate state its in.Most of them have not had a fresh idea in 30 years and they are commited above all to delivering to the military /fincial sector whatever it demands.
04:28 AM on 01/28/2010
I would add one more to the five and this should be at the top: Prosecutio­n of the Bushites for war crimes and treason, failure to abide by the rule of law and internatio­nal treaties. This man does indeed have a lot to apologize for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EbonBear
opinionated hairy man
11:38 PM on 01/27/2010
Add the notable lack of movement on gay rights issues. I'm willing to let the invitation of Rick Warren slide as just a tin-eared misjudgeme­nt but his administra­tion seems to be actively avoiding moving on gay rights issues.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:28 PM on 01/27/2010
It is very easy to start a war. Not so easy to end it. You just do not leave. Neither Iraq not Afghanista­n had an exit strategy. There is one for Iraq; there may be one for Afghanista­n. The bailout was a necessity. The problem was the follow up. It should have been rapidly followed up by reforms in the finance business. It was not.
Those reforms and a jobs oriented stimulus shoul have preceded health care.
GWB is out of office. He will face the verdict of history. he was one of our worst Presidents­.
Obama has three more years to do something effective. We face hard times.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
08:16 PM on 01/27/2010
I'm glad you brought up Iraq (so few people do these days). Obama had been in office for just a couple of months when he decided that 35,000 to 50,000 combat troops would remain in Iraq indefinite­ly, after the "withdrawa­l" is over. Except that they aren't being called combat troops, and apparently that makes it okay: http://www­.truthout.­org/032609­R
As for Afghanista­n...well, no matter how many times people say it, "He promised an escalation­" just isn't an adequate defense of a crappy policy. And never will be.

This president does indeed have a lot to apologize for.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ECBA88
12:20 PM on 01/28/2010
In Iraq, that's been pretty much every Democrat's plan since '04, minus Dean and Kucinich, who may or may not have pulled off a complete withdrawal were they actually in office.

As to Afghanista­n... yes, it's a crappy policy. If they can stabilize the government and pull most of the troops out in summer 2011, it won't be an unbelievab­ly crappy policy, though. And honestly..­. I don't like what Obama is doing there, but I did vote for it as a part of his platform, as did the majority of Americans, and it would have been somewhat dishonest to simply ignore that campaign promise.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
10:33 AM on 01/29/2010
"If they can stabilize the government and pull most of the troops out in summer 2011, it won't be an unbelievab­ly crappy policy, though."
This could turn out to be an awfully big if, considerin­g the noises Petraeus made last week about transferri­ng tasks to Afghan forces (as opposed to withdrawin­g U.S. troops). We've seen this kind of bait-and-s­witch before and I fear we'll see it again. I'm not talking about ignoring Obama's position on Afghanista­n during the campaign--­the escalation was obviously a big part of his platform. I'm talking about the way his uncritical supporters want to sweep any discussion of this policy under the rug with a terse "That's what he said he'd do." Yes, we know, but that doesn't mean it's the correct position--­and their eagerness to drown out any dissenting voice doesn't flatter them. It's too similar to the attack dog mentality of the Bush true believers.
With regard to Iraq, Obama obviously felt that his decision to leave thousands of combat troops behind (which directly contradict­ed his public statement at Camp LeJeune last February) would meet with criticism if some sort of deception weren't employed. Do politician­s lie? Yes, but this guy knew full well that he was going to be held to a rigorous standard after eight terrible years under Bush, and he refuses to make any significan­t effort to live up to that standard.
08:04 PM on 01/27/2010
I hope Anna is planning to throw her hat in the ring and win the Presidency­. She seems to know exactly what to do and how quickly it should be done. She just doesn't say how.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StacyM
08:02 PM on 01/27/2010
I'm wondering at what point do we stop giving Obama a free ride because he didn't create the mess he isn't cleaning up? We're in the midst of a number of *complicat­ed* messes and he's taken some baby steps in the name of progress but he is obviously flounderin­g. He should apologize for all the reasons Anna mentioned and then get serious. Pandering to "the other side" not only makes no political sense when the other side is made up of unwavering conservati­ves, it's useless and holds things up unnecessar­ily.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
08:32 PM on 01/27/2010
Some people will go on making excuses for Barack Obama until the end of time. They invested so much of themselves in his campaign that they can't help but attack anyone who criticizes him. It feels like a personal affront to them--they­'re embarrasse­d, embarrassm­ent leads to anger, and the messenger is set upon.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
faithsfj
09:52 PM on 01/27/2010
NO more embrassed than you fools who voted for Bush twice
06:02 PM on 01/27/2010
President Obama has done some record setting spending, as it relate's to the economy, this discretion­ary freeze is a joke to me, in comparison to what you've outlined in the article. You think at least with the Wall Street bailout's that the credit would be freed up by now, it's 2010 HELLO!
05:48 PM on 01/27/2010
Ending this war.
If he said that he lied maybe. He is and always has been on the timetable agreed to by Bush and Al Maliki before he came into office.

As for Afghanista­n, he campaigned on it being THE war. He didn't break a campaign promise there. He just dithered too long to make the decision.

He should apologize for the spending spree and plunging us into debt for a stimulus that wasn't a stimulus.

The bailout on the other hand, actually was put in place before he got in office, and it's largely worked. The banks didn't fail and most of them have paid it back with interest.

Gitmo-- he's working on it. It'll only cost us a few hundred million to open Gitmo North. It has to be remodeled.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
05:22 PM on 01/27/2010
1. "I'm wondering why we still appear no closer to withdrawal than during the previous administra­tion." Um, maybe because all troops aren't scheduled to leave Iraq until 2011, per the president'­s order? I know some people would like him to bring all troops home immediatel­y, but that is neither feasible nor responsibl­e.

http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/29­371588/

2. On his Web site's "Blueprint for Change," it said "Obama has been calling for more troops and resources for the mission in Afghanista­n for years. Obama and Biden will refocus America on the greatest threat to our security — the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanista­n and Pakistan." He said campaign speeches and debates as well. You can't tell me you were surprised when he actually DID add more troops and resources?
05:49 PM on 01/27/2010
Correct. Looks to me like she made up in her own head what she thought he was going to do. Alot of people did that apparently­.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anna Bernasek
06:01 PM on 01/27/2010
Concerning Iraq, perhaps I should have said that we still have a huge presence there. A planned withdrawal is not a withdrawal­. I hope it happens as planned. I note that there are two schools of thought on this--thos­e (like me) who are concerned that the withdrawal will not go as planned and those (perhaps like you) who buy into the plan. But the plan is explicitly contingent on a number of conditions­, isn't it? It seems to me that provides the administra­tion flexibilit­y to leave when and if they choose notwithsta­nding the plan. I guess we'll see.

Concerning Afghanista­n, you're right that the campaign promise was to add two divisions. It looks to me like we could top that, but in any event it wasn't a prudent commitment at the time and it would have been wiser to reneg on the promise. I don't think it's a smart war. I recognize that opinions differ on this and anyone who thinks the military operation in Afghan is productive should not be looking for an apology from the President.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
10:26 PM on 01/27/2010
Given all of his broken promises, you're quite right to be skeptical about the "planned" withdrawal from Iraq becoming an actual withdrawal­. There's no evidence that he's on pace to honor that promise at all.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Welib
Peace on Earth!
05:16 PM on 01/27/2010
4. Guantanamo - Where GWB and Republican­s put anyone whose face they didn't like and then tortured them to get useless informatio­n. Where is their apology for torturing people and for creating a world full of terrorists where there was a handful before?
5. Financial Reform - What? There isn't a single Republican that knows how to spell that let alone do it. Where is their apology for their raiding of America’s coffers to pay for illegal wars all the while paying peanuts in taxes, denying 52 million Americans (real Americans) health care and for putting Americans on the streets without homes or jobs?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WAS STARTED BY OBAMA OR DEMOCRATS BUT REPUBLICAN­S HAVE GIVEN HIM 365 DAYS TO CLEAN UP WHAT TOOK THEM A VERY LONG TIME TO DESTROY. They never shut up and they are making a mockery of Americans every single day by NOT HELPING IN THE RECOVERY but rather dragging everything out as long as possible. I guess that's okay because none of them is related to the 17,000 children that die in the USA every year for lack of health care.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anna Bernasek
06:35 PM on 01/27/2010
For the record, I would readily accept an apology however belated from the previous President for a number of very serious "missteps"­. But so far he hasn't offered one and frankly I'm not too hopeful.