Legal Schnauzer: Why Is Obama Troubled By Corruption In Afghanistan, But Not In U.S.?

[Hissyspit]

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-is-obama-concerned-about-corruption.html

MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2009
Why Is Obama Troubled by Corruption in Afghanistan, but not in U.S.?

We enthusiastically cast our ballots for Barack Obama in November 2008 partly because, after eight years of George W. Bush, we couldn't wait to have a smart guy in the White House again.

Almost one year into the Obama presidency, we still think he's a smart guy. And that's why it pains us when he takes a position that is intellectually inconsistent, if not dishonest.

Obama's weakest position, in our view, has been his determination to "look forward, not backward" regarding the apparent crimes of the Bush administration. That stance has never made sense, and it makes even less sense now that Obama has announced plans to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.

At the heart of the Obama plan is a push to root out corruption in Afghanistan. And that's ironic because Obama has shown no interest in rooting out corruption here at home.

Why the surge in Afghanistan? Obama hopes to stabilize the country and turn it over to the government of President Hamid Karzai. Unfortunately, the Karzai government is flagrantly corrupt, marked by cronyism and electoral fraud.

Sounds a lot like the Bush administration, doesn't it? But Obama wants Americans to forget all the pain that was inflicted upon our democracy over the past eight years.

Obama is a smart guy, so he should be able to see the irony in headlines like this: "White House Tells Karzai to Fight Corruption or be Left Behind." Consider this report out of France last week:

The White House on Wednesday warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai to fight corruption or see Washington bypass his cabinet and seek out lower level officials to provide essential services to Afghans.

The warning--coming a day after Obama said the US government would no longer give Afghanistan a "blank check" for US aid--turned up the pressure on Karzai to end the corruption seen as fueling the Taliban insurgency.

Here's a key statement from Obama's speech last week at West Point:

"We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."

Accountability for corruption? That's exactly what many progressives want to see regarding the Bush administration. But Obama, so far, has turned a deaf ear.

How concerned is the White House about corruption in Afghanistan? Consider this report from The New York Times:

In addition, some American officials and their European counterparts would like at least a few arrests of what one administration official called “the more blatantly corrupt” people in the Afghan government.

The names of some high-profile Afghans have been floated for possible arrest, including Karzai's brother who is suspected of being a major player in the country's illegal opium trade. Writes the Times:

“A couple of high-profile heads on a platter would be nice,” said one European diplomat involved in Afghanistan.

High-profile heads on a platter? What about the ones who are close at hand? Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, perhaps the most prominent victim of a political prosecution during the Bush era, has pointed to a "high-profile head"--a guy who goes by the name of Karl Rove. But the Obama administration seems to have no platters for such high-profile heads here at home.

The surge in Afghanistan cannot work, Obama seems to be saying, if the people do not have a government they can trust. But the president apparently does not realize that, after eight years under George W. Bush, many Americans see no reason to trust their government. And that could doom Obama's efforts at change.

Which brings us back to our essential question: Why is corruption a problem when it occurs in Afghanistan, but not when it happens in the United States?

How Obama answers that question might largely determine the success or failure of his presidency.

Mods: Reproduced In Entirety With Permission Of Roger

[polichick]

1. That is one hell of a question! K&R

[glitch]

3. The answer to this question could answer a WHOLE LOT of other ones, methinks. nt

[polichick]

4. Sure would. I'd love for the president to actually answer it. nt

[UP_4012]

13. Damn Straight!

[mdmc]

2. $

[polichick]

5. I love your Charlie Brown Christmas picture! nt

[tom_paine]

6. and fear, don't forget the fear...

fear of RW Crazies who can plot assassinations and don't get charged with felonies by Bushie courts, which of course makes obvious that if he pushes too far, a "hole" will likely open up in his security and a pesky "lone" RW gumman will kill him (God Forbid).

JFK, RFK, MLK, Wellstone and others have long delivered this message home to Democrats - The Bushies can kill them anytime they want and since Bushies control Law Enforcement, as with the anthrax "investigation" Democrats can be murdered secure in knowing that their murderers will walk free (perhaps a conviction of a patsy will be required as a sop, but not even that is required anymore, so weak and gullible is the American Subject populace).

So, it's not justthe money - it's the FEAR, also.

[polichick]

11. Gosh, if that's the case why would anyone WANT to be prez?? nt

[Hydra]

15. You couldn't GIVE that office

You aren't in charge- you're just delivering the message of TPTB.

[ShamelessHussy]

7. exactly, it is a farkin murderous scam of the highest order.

k&r

[provis99]

8. well, what's more american than rank hypocrisy?"

It's a case of that good ole American saying, "Do as I say, not as I do"

[polichick]

9. Yeah, I love how we go around telling everyone how to run their elections! nt

[leftstreet]

10. K&R

Interesting!

[chill_wind]

12. That's an extremely valid question.

He is not in a campaign any longer. "We WON", remember? The country said "enough!" when we elected him. He has the opportunity of a lifetime and a bully-pulpit to do what is right. What is he saving it for? What is there and where do you go after the POTUS gig?

[Hissyspit]

14. early morning kick nt

[midnight]

16. K&R. Justice for Gov. Siegelman who is a victim of corruption in American.

High-profile heads on a platter? What about the ones who are close at hand? Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, perhaps the most prominent victim of a political prosecution during the Bush era, has pointed to a "high-profile head"--a guy who goes by the name of Karl Rove. But the Obama administration seems to have no platters for such high-profile heads here at home.

[defendandprotect]

19. Siegelman seems to be invisible to most Democrats . . . including Obama . . .????

How, I can't imagine -- !!!

:evilgrin:

[12string]

17. Corruption At Home

I couldn't agree more.His,"We are looking forward.",statement was the first of too many disappointments to date.

[defendandprotect]

18. ....tsk . . . BECAUSE, if you fight it over there . . . it won't come here --- !!!

As for here . . .

Obama said he saw no reason to impeach Bush -- !!!

This from an someone who allegedly taught the Constitution!!!

hmmmm.....

You know one or more of the founders even wrote on a conspiracy

because a President and a VP . . . and the need to SUSPEND the

administration in that cause!!

[Mithreal]

20. Late Kick

[judesedit]

21. Way more election fraud and corruption in U.S. than anywhere else and it's swept under the rug by

everyone. The people that threw the election to Bush by tampering with computer software in Ohio and Florida in 2004 have testified to it in a federal government hearing under oath. And everyone knows the position was handed to them in 2000. Gore won. Kerry won. Why wasn't the Bush and Cheney fiasco exposed and their promotions annulled immediately is my question? Their's was a totally illegitimate administration who caused major devastation to our country and at least two others. Now they have the gall to question other countries' elections? What a farce. How stupid do they think Americans are? Just as the Kennedy assassinations and truth about 9/11 will emerge, the truth about our government officials' illegal activity will be brought to light, too. Many of our presidents have been no better than any other country's. Look at Reagan. I truly think in this fragile situation, the truth about Bush/Cheney and others would throw this country into a revolution. That is why now is not the time for disclosure. Once we've stabalized some, yes. I want those bastards tried in court and punished to the full extent of the law for illegal war crimes, kidnapping, treason, torture, murder, abuse of power, misleading congress, falsifying evidence to justify war, money laundering, etc., etc., etc. Hopefully, Obama is the real deal. He is being threatened on a regular basis. In due time with the right Attorney General, we will have hearings and the truth, even if those criminals don't get prison time or death. I hope Obama gets Bin Laden and gets the hell out of there with our troops sanity and pride intact.

[Karmadillo]

22. Because he's not really troubled by corruption in Afghanistan?

nt

[axollot]

23. K & R mate!