Obama’s Inauguration as a Global Face-Lift!

Barack Obama becomes president of the United States this Tuesday, 20th January, 2009. That time, he will have little breathing room to deal with ‘the horrible mess’ left by his predecessor George W. Bush over Israel’s war in Gaza, among other feats. Since he promised to engage in Middle East diplomacy ‘immediately’ upon taking office; His remarks signal how fast he is being pulled into the conflict that analysts say will at the very least deny him the maneuvering room that he may have sought to appoint key officials and develop a new strategy.

The conflict may have even worse consequences for a new president who wants to make a clean break with the Bush era. Remember, he was supposed to change the mood, tone, music with respect to America in the Arab and Muslim world. Well, guess what? This guy is coming into office against a backdrop of incredible bitterness and anger against Israel and, by implication, the United States.

That loss of a loved one or was injured in Iraq Afghanistan, and personally gives his condolences. An even thing to do, ( as that’s what I take re-borns are- stuffed with more Christianity then those not re-born ones) and spread some of Seniors bonus’ from Carlyle, soon to his and Job’s, during his visits. After all it’s not as if he’s a poor farmer struggling against those malevolent Democrats, socialists, Reds, etc…then pop over to Iraq would be too insensitive to travel around in, but I’m sure he can lug a few of the aforementioned sidewinders to dish out to apologies to its citizens for their countries destruction for it NOT being Weapons of mass destruction, removing Saddam to improve their lives and to bring Democracy.

Mr. George W. Bush is a terrible politician and he failed miserably as a business man however he is fantastic at breaking the law, snorting cocaine and making a complete and utter fool of himself. Career suggestions anyone? There are two options, he can either become an international drugs smuggler; a courageous and worthy career with the same propensity towards violence as he has now; or he can become a comedian. Just imagine his punch line: ‘Politics, I leave that to the politicians, I am just an ordinary guy who likes to sit on my ranch and consider which Middle Eastern country to bomb next. By the way, where is the middle east?’

As he explains his policy on delegating. A trip to Afghanistan would be nice to admit he failed to deliver on his promises. While there, the Christian thing to do is to initiate a rapprochement with Osama and his deputy, which he can use as ruse to capture the Bastard, and at least save a bit of face. The pentagon should not be left out, asking to be forgiven for single-handedly bringing the Military to its knees. Such undertaking would certainly go along way towards redemption, and calm his fears that being an outlook.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century — a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental. This are the deregulation so much of industry wanted taken to its logical conclusion. Regulations are rules that govern economic behavior that were authorized by Congress, giving them the authority of laws. Therefore all those business people and “conservatives” who wanted to eliminate regulations were effectively asking for laws to be eliminated. Now that is happening. I gather the concern expressed in this article is that the business people are not selecting the laws/regulations to be removed. Without laws, they rules are written by the strongest, which right now is the government since that is where the money resides that the businesses all want. What is the problem?

It is not just another public-works program. It’s a plan that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment — the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as all around the country there’s so much work to be done. That’s why we’ll invest in priorities like energy and education, health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century. There is another promise to creating a smart grid. The House proposal includes $32 billion to create a “smarter and better grid” for energy transmission distribution and production, with a focus on renewable technology. Obama has pledged on Electronic health care records, Weatherizing homes, doubling funding for basic science research, Expanding broadband among others. Granted, the items mentioned above are still in the proposal stage. But the plan is concrete enough that we’re moving the Obameter on those items from No Action to In the Works. As we delve more into the stimulus bill’s details, we expect to be moving the meter on other promises.

The Obama administration has a big mess on their hands to clean,no matter what happens Unless Obama learns to impose limits on Israel instead of taking cues from it — as Bush and his predecessor Bill Clinton have largely done — Washington will remain an ‘ineffective mediator. The world regrets that Bush is leaving Obama with ‘a horrible mess,’ said the conflict in Gaza forces Obama to act more quickly than he would have liked. What I think (the Obama team) may have hoped for would have been several months breathing room while to get appointments in place, figure out a strategy.

That’s a big problem because it strips him of an opportunity to create his own character, his own stamp. He inherits the Bush administration policies whether he likes it or not. Even if Israel soon ends its onslaught against the Islamist Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, it will still take weeks to work out post-conflict security, humanitarian and economic arrangements. We expected Hamas to emerge stronger politically from the conflict while it would be more difficult to deal with Israel. The United States are going to be perceived to be weak … We can’t or won’t deal with Hamas, we can’t or won’t restrain the Israelis and we don’t have the capacity to put together a deal. That’s horrible for an incoming president, that we’re weak. Forget that we’re biased. Everybody knows we’re biased.

I recalled that Obama had mentioned a speech he would give in a ‘major Muslim capital, and that would have started him on a very different footing … on a level of engagement rather than on crisis management and war. The first African-American president of the United States will still have ‘some options’ to act differently than Bush in striking post-conflict arrangements.

Obama has little choice but to start new initiatives because the Annapolis peace process launched in November 2007 is going nowhere. You will agree with me that Obama will have to use a firmer hand with Israel.

In view of the real scope of the underlying problem; the tacit fraud at almost every link in the underly

ing chain; and ultimately the fact that the housing market prices are continuing to decline in areas not affected by foreclosures, this is all beginning to look like nothing more than political posturing, smoke and mirrors.

Has anyone ever seriously looked at the possibility of going after (legally in court I mean) the people who were in charge at the banks when this mess was being created? There has got to be something that can be done to make them pay for what is happening now! not only are they got away with cash and other benefits in their pockets, but also got away relatively free (relative to the ones who stayed behind, like shareholders, and those who came afterwards, like taxpayers) because they were able to cash-in long before the end of the game. In my view, this level of gross, self-serving incompetence equals fraud and, at a minimum, nobody should be allowed to benefit from it. I say, take back the money (bonuses) and assets of those top executives who were at the helm during the last 5 years, and making the big stupid decisions, in the companies now being assisted. Someone ought to be looking very seriously at how that might be done through the legal system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*