Obama blames economy for election losses but misses the point

U.S. President Barack Obama's statement yesterday that the majority Democrats had taken a "shellacking" in Tuesday's election because of the tepid economic recovery was shocking. Sure, if in the two years since Barack Obama took office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the U.S. economy had completely turned around and U.S. industries were crying for more workers, the opposition Republicans probably would not have won 60 seats to control the House of Representatives. Economic success would most likely have enabled the Democrats to retain a portion of the popularity they achieved in 2008, when Obama led his party back into the White House on a wave of public disgust over the performance of the Bush administration. But for all his vaunted political skills, Obama has repeatedly misread the American public since taking office. U.S. voters did not turn the Republicans out of the White House merely because the economy had been disastrously mishandled by his predecessor, they elected the first black president to repudiate the seemingly gleeful lawlessness of the Bush administration. The George W. Bush presidency broke a long list of the country's most-cherished legal principles and traditions -- eviscerating the constitutional separation of powers, overruling the U.S. Bill of Rights, disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations, ignoring the Geneva Conventions. For all the good Obama has been able to accomplish in reforming the way the country regulates itself, he has decidedly failed to address the biggest problem -- the one that has left the United States unsure of how to function. Bush and other officials in his administration, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, must be called to answer for their abuses of power. An investigation doesn't necessarily mean anybody is guilty of anything, although it seems so, it just means the United States is not afraid to examine its conduct and make corrections when warranted. The Congress should set up a commission, with the power to compel witnesses to testify, to figure out what went wrong during the Bush administration and how to prevent it from happening again. That is the only way for the United States to regain its footing as an international leader and for Obama to redeem his presidency.

Secretary of State says massive debt threatens U.S. security

In Washington, sometimes, the truth comes out when everybody least expects it, like when they're looking for something else. That seems to be what happened Thursday when, testifying before Congress on the U.S. State Department's request for additional funding, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated outright that the country's burgeoning deficit -- $1.4 trillion and growing -- threatened the country's security. Gee, you think? "We have to address this deficit and the debt of the United States as a matter of national security, not only as a matter of economics," Clinton told lawmakers on various committees, according to the Reuters international news service. "I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are." And, as if that wasn't obvious enough, Clinton added that debt to other nations hinders "our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve." So, was she talking to ordinary citizens who don't have advanced degrees in economics but still are able to understand what's going on, or to the Washington political elite who have the sheepskins but still seem unable to get it? Continuing deficits are the result of deliberate decision-making -- it's possible to make mistakes in the short term but by the time it's the long term, the term "mistake" doesn't cover it. Of particular concern to Washington is China's ownership of nearly $800 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, Reuters said, and the possibility of Beijing trying to force changes in policy as a result. "The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever," Clinton said. Of course, the value of China's holdings are directly related to the continued vibrancy of the U.S. economy, so Beijing has a strong interest in not forcing it to derail. But why doesn't the Congress have that same interest? What did they think would be the result of cutting taxes by billions of dollars at the same time they were authorizing the spending of hundreds of billions on an offensive war in Iraq? The $4.9 billion increase in the State Department budget is to pay for diplomatic and development work in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Clinton said. "We are now assuming so many of the post-conflict responsibilities, and that is the bulk of our increase," she said.