There has been a lot of discussion lately about the economy—more than in the past few weeks. It seems as though we have reached some sort of economic tipping point, where things have gotten better, but won’t fully turn around or will get much worse unless the Obama administration takes some further serious steps to correct things. Rising unemployment, gains in foreclosures, as well as a constant lack in lending (which in my opinion will always be a practice that sees problems). A recent NYTimes article explained it well:

It is true that more time is needed to show results for policies that are currently in place, including stimulus spending, foreclosure relief and the bank rescue. But it is also clear that joblessness and defaults are worse now than was assumed when those policies were formed. So the need for more federal help is all but inevitable, as are political fights over renewed aid. President Obama may want to avoid those battles until health reform passes, but he still should lay the groundwork in three main areas.

If Obama doesn’t step it up, things will indeed go further south than before. Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist, explained the stimulus trap so well that I encourage anyone to read it. He also had some pretty sound advice:

What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try. He needs to remind the country that he’s trying to steer the country through a severe economic storm, and that some course adjustments — including, quite possibly, another round of stimulus — may be necessary.

Obama seems to have totally moved on from this subject, and he did until it came up again in June after the job loss reports came in. It was a serious wake up call to the administration—one that Joe Biden jumped on too quickly. But whether the administration misread the economy or simply didn’t do enough, is a moot point. In concurrence with Paul Krugman, Bill Maher, and many other voices, I hope Obama has the guts to do what needs to be done, because he has not done enough.

I have recently received some criticism that the majority of stories are too one sided on this site. This post was somewhat in response to the comments. It will not be the last of its kind.

#3 Álvaro Uribe

Unconditional support in the drug war. The Colombian president was a staunch pro-U.S. voice in a region where Bush had few friends. The affection was mutual. Bush authorized millions in military aid for Colombia’s war against drug cartels and leftist rebels and awarded Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing his “immense personal courage and strength of character.”

These days, things aren’t quite so friendly. Obama campaigned on his opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, citing human rights issues. There is also growing concern in the administration over Colombia’s methods in the war on drugs. An anonymous source told the Washington Post that at their meeting last week, Obama planned to question Uribe on a recent United Nations report that characterized extrajudicial killings by Colombian security forces as “cold-blooded, premeditated murder.”

Uribe has also lost the unique status he enjoyed under Bush, as Obama has made an active effort to improve relations with other Latin American leaders, including leftists. Both presidents say that progress continues to be made on the free-trade agreement and other issues, but the days when Colombia was the one reliable U.S. partner in South America are over.

As you know, I typically don’t post good things here, but when they’re happening because of something so full of failure, it’s a must.

jeremyscahill:

By Jeremy Scahill

Earlier this week, I wrote an article based on interviews I conducted with two of the leading anti-torture attorneys working to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes: Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union. That article was called Top Anti-Torture Lawyers Criticize AG Holder’s Torture Probe, Saying It May Let ‘Higher-Ups’ Off. Another lawyer, who has worked tirelessly on this issue has weighed in with a different perspective that I think is worth reading.

At Harper’s, the well-respected constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton makes the case that any Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate torture will, by nature of their investigation, end up investigating senior Bush administration officials:

As soon as the special prosecutor gets into the facts relating to the use of the Bush-approved techniques, he will deal with the claims of interrogators and deeply implicated contractors like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen that they were acting under instructions from higher up the chain and in accordance with guidance delivered by senior CIA officials and political appointees, both oral and written. The special prosecutor will have to examine the bona fides of these claims and investigate the guidance that was given and whether it comported with law. In other words, the conduct of Bush Administration officials may well not be implicated in the specific tasking document issued by Holder, but it would be raised by way of affirmative defense by the interrogators and contractors. The special prosecutor will not be able ultimately to avoid looking at these questions if he or she pursues the job credibly. And if Holder were to direct that certain individuals are immune from review by the special prosecutor, he would make the entire exercise into a travesty. The inference that higher-ups won’t be caught up in the investigation is, in my view, unwarranted.

#1 Benjamin Netanyahu

The benefit of the doubt. Netanyahu took power (for the second time) just two months after Obama, but the two have never been in sync. Obama has been far more outspoken than his predecessors on the issue of settlement construction in the West Bank, including the so-called “natural growth” of existing communities, which Netanyahu is determined to keep on the table. “What the hell do they want from me?” he reportedly told an associate after a particularly contentious White House meeting.

The Israeli government claims that a tacit agreement was reached with the Bush administration that would have allowed natural growth to continue. The Obama team counters that no such agreement exists, though Bush’s former deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, says that it did.

Despite the disagreement, Netanyahu’s team stresses that “there is no crisis” between the administrations and progress is being made on the settlements issue. However the current impasse is resolved, it’s clear the United States was far more cautious about issuing ultimatums to Israel in the Bush years.

#1 Silvio Berlusconi

His old buddy. In 2008, Time’s Jeff Israely called the Italian president Bush’s “Last Best Friend on Earth.” A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but it’s true that Berlusconi stuck with Bush when nearly every other European leader (and Italian politician) was scoring cheap political points by attacking him as a reckless cowboy.

Berlusconi provided political cover for his American friend by supporting the war in Iraq while most of Western Europe opposed it, but the close relationship between the two leaders seemed to go beyond politics. The conservative Christian from Texas and the lecherous billionaire might seem an odd pair, but Berlusconi was a frequent guest at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, and Bush called the Italian leader a “man of sincerity and principle.”

Berlusconi committed an early gaffe with Obama, calling the African-American president “young, handsome, and also tanned.” There are also reports that U.S.-Italian relations have cooled somewhat and that the Obama administration is irritated by Berlusconi’s close relations with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The United States also supports expanding the Group of Eight or consolidating its European members, a move that is likely to irritate Italy, which depends on G-8 membership for international legitimacy.