"President Obama's Transparency Faulted"
Special Investigator General Neil Barofsky, who is attempting to oversee the government's TARP program for crisis-stricken financial institutions only to be stonewalled at every turn by the Messiah's Treasury Department, has apparently had enough:
"Barofsky issued a stinging report Monday that complained of a lack of transparency in the Obama administration's management of the giant financial-services bailout program." (All emphases mine)
Mr. Barofsky isn't the only one who's been noticing a certain, shall we say, "opacity" lately on the part of the Messiah, in stark contrast to his fervent pledges of complete and utter clarity of governance on the part of himself and his administration at pretty much every speaking opportunity during the campaign:
"Increased transparency was a campaign pledge Obama made at every turn during the election campaign. As president, he said, he would invite television cameras into the negotiating sessions over health care"... "The discussions have not played out that way. Obama has met repeatedly in the White House with congressional leaders to discuss health-care strategy. No cameras, or reporters, have been allowed to cover the talks."
And more:
"Advocates for open government have been distressed by Obama's announcement in May that he would block release of photos showing U.S. troops mistreating prisoners in Iraq. They also criticized his efforts to conceal the names of visitors to the White House."
By the way, as long as we're checking up on President Obama's campaign promises, how's the Messiah's showy and proudly announced Day One executive order, the one that purported to "fix" what he repeatedly and loudly called one of the major mistakes of his predecessor by closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, coming along?
Er, the administration was kind of hoping that no one would get around to asking that question just yet:
"Senior administration officials said Monday that the report on detention will be delayed six months and the report on interrogation and transfer policy will be delayed two months."
That updated timeline would bring us to right around January 20, 2010, the firm date the "den of unspeakable torture" is supposed to be permanently boarded up on Obama's direct order.
So this report is to be completed moments before it's scheduled to be implemented, without any public review? That's apparently the case, but we are betting that at least some of those detainees aren't going anywhere, despite Obama's previous constant hammering on President Bush's "illegally" holding these unlawful battlefield combatants without giving them a trial:
"A final group will be held indefinitely without charge, subject to occasional judicial review, the administration has said."
Now hold on just one darn second - we thought that this was one of the major arguments passed down from the Messiah to us American simpletons as to why we were supposed to favor him in the voting booth last fall? Let's check the Google wayback machine for clarity:
"The president-elect has repeatedly said the legal framework at Gitmo has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists," said one of the officials close to the transition, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private deliberations."
Yep, we thought we'd seen something along those lines.
We fail to see one whit's worth of difference in Bush's previous policy holding people forever without charging them with a crime (which we had some significant problems with, by the way) and Obama's current (and presumably future) policy of holding people forever without charging them with a crime. Can anyone help enlighten us as to exactly what the difference between the two happens to be?
It appears that CBS News called it exactly right back on November 14, 2008:
"It's a clear sign that the new president intends to make good on one of his most emphatic campaign promises"... "The real question facing Obama: Will he change the rules under which captured terrorists are held, or just their address?"The latter, it seems, which doesn't seem so much like "change" to us.
UPDATE: A breaking example of President Obama's administration is shaping up to look strikingly similar to the one of former President Bush, as the Messiah is taking some heat (from Democrats, no less) for making "signing statements" that unconstitutionally assert his right to completely ignore the parts of laws that he doesn't care for, the exact same action that the Obama (correctly, in our opinion) harshly criticized President Bush for repeatedly doing while he was on the campaign trail, and something he repeatedly and solemnly vowed not to do himself:
"President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same."
By way of comparison, here's Candidate Obama on the topic, as pulled out of the archives by Curt of Flopping Aces:
"We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress."
How quickly he forgets his lofty promises. But then again, he "taught the Constitution for ten years", so what do us peasants know compared to His All-Knowingness?
"Do as I say, not as I do" and "It's OK only if I say it is" seem to be quickly becoming the overriding themes of the Obama Presidency.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment