[Peace-discuss] "Obama a Very Smooth Liar"

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Published on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 by The Providence Journal
	Obama a Very Smooth Liar
	by John R. MacArthur

It isn't quite fair to call Barack Obama a liar. During the campaign he 
carefully avoided committing to much of anything important that he might have to 
take back later. For now, I won’t quibble with The St. Petersburg Times’s 
Obamameter, which so far has the president keeping 30 promises and breaking only 
six.

And yet, broadly speaking, Obama has been lying on a pretty impressive scale. 
You just have to get past his grandiloquent rhetoric — usually empty of 
substance — to get a handle on it. I offer a short, incomplete list, which I’m 
sure others could easily enlarge.

Obama portrayed himself as the peace candidate, or at least the anti-war 
candidate. He is not a peace president, nor is he stopping any wars. True, he 
promised military escalation in Afghanistan (to blunt John McCain’s accusations 
of wimpishness), but well-meaning folks believed their new hero would genuinely 
move to end the occupation of Iraq and seriously try to negotiate with the 
Taliban. Instead, he has not only increased the number of troops and attacks 
against the Afghan insurgency, he has also expanded on George Bush’s 
cross-border raids into Pakistan, which have killed many civilians. The way 
things are going, Pakistan could become the new Cambodia and Obama the new Nixon.

In Iraq, Obama has promised to withdraw all the troops . . . unless, which means 
that we’re not leaving. Whether it’s 50,000 troops remaining at the “invitation” 
of the so-called government of Iraq, or just enough to man the 14 permanent 
military bases, or some combination of U.S. military personnel and private 
mercenaries that exceeds 50,000 soldiers, our army will almost certainly stay in 
Iraq past the stated deadline of Jan. 1, 2012.


Obama said he wanted to reform Washington and “fix” its “broken” system of 
corrupt lobbying. But Obama is neither a reformer nor a skilled legislative 
mechanic. Hatched from the Daley Machine in one-party Chicago, Obama wouldn’t be 
president today if he rocked boats. Witness the appointment of Roland Burris by 
the corrupt former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s Senate seat: not a word 
of public protest from the new administration because Burris is a made man in 
the Chicago Democratic organization. So what if “Tombstone Roland” can be heard 
on the U.S. attorney’s wiretaps of Blagojevich, dancing around the delicate 
question of how to raise money for Blago without appearing to be buying his seat.

As for pork-barrel politics, Obama named one of its greatest champions, 
Chicago’s own Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff, and the new budget (as well 
as the “stimulus” package) is loaded with pork. Meanwhile, have you heard 
anything serious about campaign-finance reform from Obama? Not very likely from 
someone who refused public financing and still has about $10 million left over 
from record receipts of $745.7 million. It’s just a detail, I know, but Obama’s 
naming of former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn III as deputy secretary of 
defense seems to be at odds with the president’s alleged crusade against special 
interests and the “revolving door” between private business and government. He 
has also “sold” ambassadorships to campaign donors. The biggest plum, London, is 
slated for Lou Susman, a Chicagoan and former Citigroup executive who bundled 
$239,000. Paris has been reserved for Charles Rivkin, who raised about $500,000 
for Obama.


Obama, with his Arabic middle name and his big Cairo speech, wants people to 
think that he is the Muslim world’s new best friend. Well, the photograph of a 
cheery Obama with Saudi King Abdullah and a smiling Emanuel with Saudi Foreign 
Minister Saud al-Faisal, proves the contrary. The Saudi royal family hates the 
idea of representative government for ordinary Muslims and is cruelly 
indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians. A democratic, independent, partly 
secular Palestine could only make the Saudi oligarchy look bad. Thus, the House 
of Saud is perfectly happy with the status quo, and so, evidently, is Obama.

Without Saudi pressure, there will be no resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, since Saudi oil is the only lever that would cause America to press 
Israel into making real concessions. Indeed, the president doesn’t mean for one 
minute to force Israel into anything more than symbolic withdrawals of its 
illegal settlements on the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Saudi elite continues to 
play its double game, paying protection money to extremist Islam and granting 
pensions to the relatives of suicide bombers. It’s just politics, say Barack and 
Rahm, grinning ear-to-ear with their sleazy new friends from Riyahd. Just keep 
the oil pumping around election time and all will be well.


Obama makes like he’s a friend of organized labor, at least he did during the 
Ohio primary when he needed to beat Hillary Clinton. At the time, he put out a 
flier headlined “Only Barack Obama fought NAFTA and other bad trade deals” and 
charged that “a little more than a year ago, Hillary Clinton thought NAFTA was a 
‘boon’ to the economy.” In a debate with Clinton on Feb. 26, 2008, he said, “I 
will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA] in the same way that Senator Clinton 
talked about” and “use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage” to get 
“labor and environmental standards that are enforced.”

But two months ago, U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk said such a blunt instrument was no 
longer necessary and that the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were now 
“of the mind that we should be looking for opportunities to strengthen [the 
North American Free Trade Agreement].” And, of course, there is no discussion at 
all about renegotiating Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, a “bad 
trade deal” that has done even greater harm to American workers and unions than 
has NAFTA.
Meanwhile, as I noted in my April 15 column, “Wall Street sharks circle the 
UAW,” Obama and his banker friend Steven Rattner are liquidating the United Auto 
Workers even as they liquidate the American auto industry. Robert Reich, Bill 
Clinton’s pseudo-secretary of labor, said as much. “The only practical purpose I 
can imagine for the bailout is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time 
for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual 
demise,” he wrote last month in the Financial Times — no surprise, considering 
that Obama’s chief economic adviser remains Lawrence Summers, a champion of 
deregulation and “free-market” economics in the Clinton administration and very 
much the enemy of labor unions.

Yes, of course it’s nice to have a president who speaks in complete sentences. 
But that they’re coherent doesn’t make them honest.

© 2009 The Providence Journal
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine. Among other books, he is the 
author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War.