Joined
·
6,391 Posts
This is something that’s been bothering me for a while, and it’s something that I’d like to share. Note that this is strictly an opinion piece.
President Barack Obama has been in office for about three months now and although we've seen some encouraging signs of change (especially in international relations) I've also noticed some disturbing trends in his administration, particularly his handling of the economic crisis and the torture legacy of the former administration. It has gradually dawned on me (and this is just my own opinion) that the current President's sense of responsibility is a little bit skewed. I'll list two primary examples.
The first is his handling of the economic crisis. Some time ago Obama forced GM's president Rick Wagoner to resign due to his failure to provide acceptable plans for GM's viability. Many people saw it as an abuse of power (to which I agree) but it goes much further than that. Although Obama was willing to put his foot down and be tough with GM he was, at the same time, treating the big banks with kid gloves. This strikes me as rather ironic. Although GM wasn't the best company around they were not responsible for the current crisis. In many ways GM was actually the biggest victim of this crisis. On the other hand, the big banks actually were responsible for the crisis. They are the villains here, the ones who single-handedly brought down the world economy and put companies like GM into the dire situation that they're in. And so here we have Obama punishing the main victim of the crisis while giving the villains a free pass. Is this responsible behavior? Am I the only one who seems to think that something’s gone terribly wrong here?
When Wagoner was ousted I thought, well what about Bank of America’s Ken Lewis or Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit? What about any of the other bankers who have brought America’s economy to its knees? Where’s their punishment? If Obama cared about responsibility he would punish the big banks and the executives who head them. Furthermore, he would force the executives, shareholders, and bondholders to pay for the company’s mistakes, not the American public. At the very least he should not be trampling on the victims.
The second example I point to is his seeming indifference to torture prosecutions. When he released the Bush torture memos he promised that those who carried out the torture would not be prosecuted, despite the fact that it has now been determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that war crimes have been committed. Even worse he doesn’t seem particularly interested in prosecuting those who created the torture policies. President Obama has stated that he wishes to move on and look to the future but that's not going to happen unless he addresses the injustices of the past. The torture issue needs to be addressed in order to move on, and that means prosecuting ALL those who were responsible, from the lower ranks to those at the top (including former president George W. Bush and former vice-president **** Cheney). At the very least some sort of trial should be held, whether someone's found guilty or not. As chief executive of the USA he has at least a moral duty to do so and so far, he has skirted that duty.
When Obama ran for office he promised that he would bring change to America. When the electoral results from the west coast came in I was one of those people who were overjoyed. And so it is particularly disturbing to me to see Obama side-stepping the issue of torture and continuing the same failed policies of the Bush administration in terms of the economic crisis. Instead of looking out for the American public he’s looking out for Wall Street, backing more bailouts and giving his blessings to the PPIP (which is just a sneaky way for banks to cover their losses with public money). His administration is still young and I still hope that he’ll eventually do the right thing (in terms of the economy he’ll pretty much have to when the banks are declared insolvent) but it’s still disturbing nonetheless.
Feel free to add your comments and opinions.
President Barack Obama has been in office for about three months now and although we've seen some encouraging signs of change (especially in international relations) I've also noticed some disturbing trends in his administration, particularly his handling of the economic crisis and the torture legacy of the former administration. It has gradually dawned on me (and this is just my own opinion) that the current President's sense of responsibility is a little bit skewed. I'll list two primary examples.
The first is his handling of the economic crisis. Some time ago Obama forced GM's president Rick Wagoner to resign due to his failure to provide acceptable plans for GM's viability. Many people saw it as an abuse of power (to which I agree) but it goes much further than that. Although Obama was willing to put his foot down and be tough with GM he was, at the same time, treating the big banks with kid gloves. This strikes me as rather ironic. Although GM wasn't the best company around they were not responsible for the current crisis. In many ways GM was actually the biggest victim of this crisis. On the other hand, the big banks actually were responsible for the crisis. They are the villains here, the ones who single-handedly brought down the world economy and put companies like GM into the dire situation that they're in. And so here we have Obama punishing the main victim of the crisis while giving the villains a free pass. Is this responsible behavior? Am I the only one who seems to think that something’s gone terribly wrong here?
When Wagoner was ousted I thought, well what about Bank of America’s Ken Lewis or Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit? What about any of the other bankers who have brought America’s economy to its knees? Where’s their punishment? If Obama cared about responsibility he would punish the big banks and the executives who head them. Furthermore, he would force the executives, shareholders, and bondholders to pay for the company’s mistakes, not the American public. At the very least he should not be trampling on the victims.
The second example I point to is his seeming indifference to torture prosecutions. When he released the Bush torture memos he promised that those who carried out the torture would not be prosecuted, despite the fact that it has now been determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that war crimes have been committed. Even worse he doesn’t seem particularly interested in prosecuting those who created the torture policies. President Obama has stated that he wishes to move on and look to the future but that's not going to happen unless he addresses the injustices of the past. The torture issue needs to be addressed in order to move on, and that means prosecuting ALL those who were responsible, from the lower ranks to those at the top (including former president George W. Bush and former vice-president **** Cheney). At the very least some sort of trial should be held, whether someone's found guilty or not. As chief executive of the USA he has at least a moral duty to do so and so far, he has skirted that duty.
When Obama ran for office he promised that he would bring change to America. When the electoral results from the west coast came in I was one of those people who were overjoyed. And so it is particularly disturbing to me to see Obama side-stepping the issue of torture and continuing the same failed policies of the Bush administration in terms of the economic crisis. Instead of looking out for the American public he’s looking out for Wall Street, backing more bailouts and giving his blessings to the PPIP (which is just a sneaky way for banks to cover their losses with public money). His administration is still young and I still hope that he’ll eventually do the right thing (in terms of the economy he’ll pretty much have to when the banks are declared insolvent) but it’s still disturbing nonetheless.
Feel free to add your comments and opinions.
