BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:53 AM

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor


(CNSNews.com) – Another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September--and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed--soon.

The as-yet-unnamed American serviceman who died on Wednesday was caught in a suicide attack in Khost Province, in eastern Afghanistan, press reports said.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion--and apparently some confusion--in Washington. Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases (see below), while the 43rd casualty, which occurred today, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.

In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.

McChrystal reportedly has prepared a separate request for tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to be sent to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan.

Since Sept. 21, when the Washington Post leaked information from McChrystal's confidential report, the White House has been on the defensive over its Afghanistan strategy.

As CNSNews.com reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he described as war we "have to win."

As president – in March 2009 – Obama announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future," he said. (See story)

But last week, Obama said he was not willing to send troops "beyond what we already have" until he was sure the United States is employing the right strategy in the region.

Then on Sunday, Gen. McChrystal told "60 Minutes" that he has talked to Obama only once in the past 70 days. At a briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted that President Obama "receives a memo every week from General McChrystal."

And on Wednesday, President Obama was "meeting" with McChrystal and other military officials in a video conference to discuss future plans for Afghanistan. The White House said President Obama's national security team will also attend the video conference.

"But first, Obama welcomes golfing great Arnold Palmer to the Oval Office," the Associated Press reported on Wednesday. Palmer is in town to receive the Congressional Gold Medal.

On Thursday, Obama plans to fly to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago as the venue for the 2016 Olympics. (See related story)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, says it would be a mistake for President Obama to reject McChrystal's call for an additional 40,000-or-so troops for Afghanistan.

"Time is not on our side, so we need a decision pretty quickly," McCain told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday.

McCain said failure to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan would "put the United States in much greater danger," because insurgents would turn Afghanistan into a base for attack on the U.S. and its allies.

On the other side of the coin, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) is urging President Obama to take weeks or even months to review the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, the Boston Globe reported on Wednesday.
"I am arguing that the president has the time and we have the time,'' Kerry told the newspaper. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated that he is not sure more troops are needed in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:19 AM

It is utter unreality to imagine that the USA needs to win a war in Afghanistan or that they can win a war in Afghanistan, in my opinion...or that any useful purpose can be served by trying to.

The Russians tried that. The British tried it. Alexander the Great tried it. It always ends the same way. The Afghans fight the foreigners until they leave, then the Afghans return to fighting amongst themselves until the strongest local warlord establishes temporary control of the place and things get back to normal...Afghan style.

Obama has badly lost his way with that war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM

Does Obama Have the Backbone?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. "This is not a war of choice," he said. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

Obama could have gone further. Not only would the Taliban be restored, but the insurgency might consume Pakistan. If that happens, then a nuclear power could become a failed state -- Pakistan's pretty close to that now -- and atomic weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. India, just next door and with mighty antipathy for Muslim terrorism, could well act on its own. The bloodbath the British tried to limit in 1947 when they partitioned the subcontinent might well resume -- this time with nuclear weapons.

The stakes in Afghanistan are great. But they are not ours alone. Russia is nearby. So are China and Iran. So why Americans have to shed most of the blood for a Taliban-free Afghanistan is just one of the questions Obama will have to answer. Another is why Americans have to die for a set of possibilities that seem remote to most people.


America, after all, has little tolerance for loss of life. The killing of eight American soldiers in Afghanistan over the weekend was front-page news. Contrast that with the numbers from Vietnam -- 61 dead from a single battalion in a single 1967 battle. As for the Taliban fighters, they not only don't cherish life, they expend it freely in suicide bombings. It's difficult to envisage an American suicide bomber.

The war in Afghanistan is eminently more winnable than was Vietnam. The Taliban is far from universally liked or admired. Still, the war will require more than a significant commitment of troops and, of course, money. It will take presidential leadership, a consistent staying of the course -- an implacable confidence that the right choice has been made despite what can be steep costs. I am thinking now of Lyndon Johnson spending nights in the Situation Room, a personal anguish that belied the happy belief of antiwar demonstrators that the president was a war-mongering ogre.

Foreign policy realists question whether any effort in Afghanistan can succeed. Possibly they are right. The interventionists, if I may call them that, suggest the realists are being unrealistic -- that Afghanistan matters and it matters much more than Iraq or, before that, Vietnam ever did and that we can prevail. Possibly they are right.

But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough -- so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:36 PM

Substitute 'Obama' for 'Bush' and 'Afghanistan' for 'Iraq' . . .

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

It was a scene repeated countless times during the Bush years:

A few hundred people massed on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House, wearing orange jumpsuits and hoods, holding photos of wounded children or carrying coffins. They chanted antiwar slogans, acted out waterboarding and pretended to die on the sidewalk. Those who refused orders to leave the area -- including ubiquitous activist Cindy Sheehan -- were arrested.

But the remarkable thing about this familiar antiwar demonstration is that it occurred Monday, and the target was not George W. Bush but the White House's current occupant. Protesters' signs carried Obama-specific barbs: "Change? What Change?" "The Audacity of War Crimes." "Yes We Can: U.S. Out of Afghanistan."

Several of the demonstrators had T-shirts showing a missile labeled "Obomba" and the question "Is it really OK if Obama does it?"

Besides those wording changes, the only other difference was the spiffy new natural-gas-powered Metrobus that arrived to take those arrested for processing. It said "Special" on the front and, on the side, had a McDonald's ad with the slogan "Commander-in-Beef."

If the commander in beef had been watching from a window, he would have had reason for concern. Not the demonstrators themselves: They were Green Party types with some self-proclaimed socialists thrown in, and they had never been enthusiastic Obama supporters to start with. What the president should worry about is whether these activists are indicators of bigger things to come if he sides with his generals and decides to bulk up the U.S. force in Afghanistan.

In that case he could find many more people sounding like Liz McAlister, who addressed the crowd from a stage in McPherson Square before the two-block march to the White House. She spoke of a nation "where leader follows leader from bad to worse -- as though by a malign law of nature, one ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another, more evil or stupid or violent."

The policies that earned Obama such a salute were printed on the back of the "Obomba" T-shirts, sold by the group World Can't Wait: "Indefinite Detention." "CIA Rendition." "Escalation of War in Afghanistan." "Increase in Government Spying." "Unmanned Drones Bombing Pakistan."

And those shirts didn't mention Obama's latest bomb dropped on civil libertarians: reversing his support for a law to protect anonymous sources who expose wrongdoing.

"I'm disappointed, approaching betrayal," said an organizer of the march, Jeremy Varon of Witness Against Torture. Once an avid Obama supporter, he now charges that the president is "giving a level of legitimacy to the Bush policies."


Observing the scene with some satisfaction was counter-demonstrator Phil Wilk of the conservative group Free Republic, who found himself in the odd position of defending Obama against his left-wing critics. "We're a little queasy about this," he admitted. Just to make clear that he was no Obama fan, he had a sign asserting that "Liberal Protest of Obama Doesn't Make Him a Hawk -- Just a Flip-Flopper."

The demonstrators were an odd assortment of left-wing interests. One speaker proclaimed herself a member of the African People's Socialist Party; a group distributed literature suggesting that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. But they were unified for the moment by Obama's policies on war and terrorism. Obama voter Marge van Cleef of Philadelphia, handing out "Torture Team" trading cards featuring various Bush officials, considered whether an Obama card should be added to the collection. "I guess we will," she said.

They marched to the White House and, once there, listened to the bullhorn-amplified voice of Medea Benjamin, whose Code Pink group often heckled Bush officials. She spoke of an Afghan farmer who lost his family to an American bomb. "Do you think that man is going to think that Obama is a peace president?"

"No!" the crowd shouted.

"Do you think that man will think that Obama is sincere?"

"No!"

"This is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. Does it look very different from the Bush regime?"

"No!"

Nearby, the leader of the orange-jumpsuit brigade shouted that Obama had "invested in torture." Steps away, the mock waterboarding was underway. "The Obama administration knows they did this and refuses to prosecute!" shouts the waterboarder.

After a while, Park Police had had enough. Mounted officers pushed back demonstrators, who responded with shouts of "Fascist," "Nazi" and "Sieg heil." Officers cut the chains that some had used to attach themselves to the White House fence. About 60 people stayed behind to be arrested. "Obama!" somebody called out. "Where are you?"

The officers began to lead the demonstrators, in plastic handcuffs, to the bus. One removed Cindy Sheehan's scarf and jewelry and gave her a good frisking.

"Stop the war! Stop the torture! Shame!" the demonstrators chanted, just as they had in recent years. Then someone added a new line: "Shame on you, Obama!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 03:53 PM

500,000 helped by Obama mortgage rescue
The administration reaches its goal a few weeks early. But it remains to be seen how many of these trial modifications will work.

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer
October 8, 2009: 2:26 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Loan servicing companies have put 500,000 troubled borrowers into trial mortgage modifications, the Obama administration said Thursday.

The administration set that target in late July after it came under fire for not helping homeowners fast enough.

Officials increased the pressure on servicers to speed up their implementation of the president's foreclosure prevention plan, which calls for reducing eligible borrowers' monthly payments to no more than 31% of their pre-tax income. Servicers had until Nov. 1 to hit the half-a-million mark.

The administration also released a related report Thursday showing that 16% of eligible troubled borrowers at least 60 days delinquent were placed into trial modifications as of the end of September. This is up from 12% a month earlier.

President Obama announced the $75 billion initiative in February and the first institutions to join began accepting applications in April. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:31 PM

"America, after all, has little tolerance for loss of life."

That's not quite right. America has considerable tolerance for loss of life....as long as it isn't American life. Iraqis or Afghans or other such Third Worlders who get in the way of imperial strategy can die like flies as far as America is concerned...as long as American business interests get what they want.

Why be surprised that Obama is continuing to serve the great imperial agenda, BB? I'm not surprised. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the only candidates who took a clear stand on ending those imperial wars in the Middle East...and actually meant it.

And that's one reason why they were not on your ballot on election day! Only loyal $ySStem servants get on the presidential ballot on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:36 PM

LH,

Who said I was astonished? Didn't I call him O'bomber back in the primaries?

But I seem to recall being told how he would end all wars, and reduce the deficit, and walk on water...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM

Heh! Yes, well, BB, people easily get duped by the same old marketing ploy that the ruling $ySStem springs on them every 4 to 8 years. It sells them one popular brand of politician (either a Democrat or a Republican, whichever is more in style at the time). They get to try out that brand for 4 to 8 years. By the end of that 4 to 8 years they usually have come to their senses somewhat and realized that they were sold a "lemon"! They realize they wuz robbed, lied to, and HAD! They are desperate for a CHANGE!

So the $ySStem trots out the other brand (either a Republican or a Democrat) and it looks GOOD! It's all done up in shiny new packaging, and it promises to make up for all the deficiencies of the previous brand and bring CHANGE! OOOOO-WWEEEEE!   This gets people really excited and full of hope.

They vote in the other brand, are ecstatic when it "sweeps the rascals out", and they expect wonderful things to happen.

The $ySStem laughs up its sleeve, because it owns, manufactures, and markets BOTH of those brands, and both brands serve it equally loyally the moment they are in office.

And the shit goes on...and on...and on...

And the corruption goes on...and on...and on...

And the militarism goes on and on...

And those 2 brands are the only brands in town who can get enough advertising and funding to ever get elected.

Closed shop. Guaranteed result. Guaranteed ripoff.

I see no likely solution to it except the utter collapse of the ruling $ySStem itself. If that were to happen, it would result in a social and financial catastrophe of unheard of severity for the whole North American population...and possibly a really major world war.

And that would be worse than what we have now.

Kind of discouraging...! But what the hell? I never expected much from politics anyway. To me, politics isn't what life's really about. It's just a bunch of cacophonous noise on the surface of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM

AP IMPACT: Obama's travels carry a touch of blue

Oct 13, 6:46 AM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

PITTSBURGH (AP) - For President Barack Obama, it's almost as if the election campaign never ended. Just look at his travel schedule.

The same states that Obama targeted to win the White House are seeing an awful lot of the president, Vice President Joe Biden and top Cabinet officials. Only this year, the taxpayers are footing the multimillion-dollar tab for the trips, and Obama officials are delivering wheelbarrows of economic stimulus money - also compliments of taxpayers.

An Associated Press review of administration travel records shows that three of every four official trips Obama and his key lieutenants made in his first seven months in office were to the 28 states Obama won. Add trips to Missouri and Montana - both of which Obama narrowly lost - and almost 80 percent of the administration's official domestic travel has been concentrated in states likely to be key to Obama's re-election effort in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:52 AM

Palestinians say hopes in Obama 'evaporated'
         
Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer – 45 mins ago

JERUSALEM – The Palestinian president's political party says all hopes in the Obama administration have "evaporated," accusing the White House of caving in to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby and backing off a demand to freeze Jewish settlement.

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party also accused the U.S. of failing to set a clear agenda for a new round of Mideast peace talks, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated," the document said. Obama "couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."

The Palestinians initially greeted Obama's election with enthusiasm, welcoming his outreach to the Muslim world and hoping he would depart from what they viewed as the pro-Israel bias of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Obama raised Palestinian hopes further with his repeated calls for Israel to halt all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas the Palestinians claim for a future state.

But in recent weeks, the U.S. appears to have softened its stance on settlements. Washington says it has not abandoned the objective of halting settlement construction, but U.S. officials have indicated they do not see this as a condition for resuming talks.

The memo comes at a time of turmoil within Fatah after Abbas quickly reversed a decision to suspend efforts to bring Israel before a U.N. war crimes tribunal in connection with the Gaza war.

The document, dated Oct. 12, was issued by Fatah's Office of Mobilization and Organization. The office is headed by the party's No. 2, Mohammed Ghneim.

It was not immediately clear whether the document reflects Abbas' views or whether it was leaked to pressure Obama to bear down harder on Israel. Abbas' aides had no comment and Ghneim could not immediately be reached for comment.

The U.S. Embassy in Israel did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The document reiterated Fatah's demand for Israel to freeze settlement construction and agree to a clear agenda for peace talks before negotiations can resume.

The Palestinians want talks to resume from the point they broke down last year under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Netanyahu says he is not bound by any concessions Olmert may have made.

Obama personally intervened last month, when he summoned Abbas and Netanyahu to a three-way meeting in New York. But he failed to break the impasse.

The document echoes sentiments expressed by other Fatah officials. On Sunday, former Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan said the party "feels very disappointed and worried by the U.S. administration retreat."

The last round of Israel-Palestinian negotiations broke down late last year with no breakthroughs on the main issues dividing the two sides: final borders, the status of disputed Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinians who lost homes and other property in Israel after it achieved statehood in 1948.

The dispute over ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem has blocked all efforts to get the sides to talk, let alone solve the intractable conflict.

Netanyahu says some settlement construction must continue to accommodate growth of existing settler populations. He also says all of Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands, although Israel's annexation of the eastern part of the city and its sensitive holy sites has never been internationally recognized.

The Fatah memo comes at a time when Abbas is under relentless criticism from the rival Hamas group, which rules Gaza. They accused him of betraying the Palestinian cause by suspending efforts to bring Israel before a U.N. war crimes tribunal over the winter offensive on Gaza. Abbas has since reversed himself, and the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, which commissioned the report, is expected to debate the findings on Thursday.

Firing back at his critics Tuesday, Abbas said the Hamas-run Gaza Strip has become an "emirate of darkness." He also accused Hamas fighters of fleeing during the fighting while they "left their people to be killed in Gaza."

Tuesday's speech was Abbas' harshest so far on his Hamas rivals.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called Abbas' speech "base and misguided."

Relations between Abbas's Fatah government in the West Bank and Hamas collapsed when Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. The latest spat has dealt a new blow to reconciliation efforts between the factions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 12:10 PM

Like I said, "just a bunch of cacophonous noise on the surface of life." ;-)

What really matters for YOU is how you handle yourself today and on each succeeding day that remains in this life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:28 AM

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:
Promise Broken

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

"As president, I will make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because when I am president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy."

"It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11. . . . When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
[

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:33 AM

I never agreed with Obama's ideas about fighting his wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think it's a stupid idea, and guaranteed to end in failure.

I liked McCaine's ideas even less, however.

Bit of a rotten choice to be given to vote for, isn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:49 AM

A Wave Takes Shape in Delaware

By George F. Will
Thursday, October 15, 2009

Demure Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, but since then has not made many waves. It might, however, be part of a political wave a year from now, thanks to a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin.

The great man's great-great-great-great-great grandson, Mike Castle, 70, a nine-term Delaware congressman, will be next year's Republican nominee for the Senate seat Joe Biden held for 36 years. This and other candidate-recruitment successes make it reasonable for Republicans to hope that in January 2011 the Senate will contain fewer than 60 Democrats.

Biden's seat is currently occupied by a former Biden staffer who, in service to the ancient notion that public offices should be family patrimonies, will disappear when Biden's son Beau, 40, runs. He is the state's attorney general and has just returned from serving in Iraq with his Army National Guard unit. Delaware has not elected a Republican senator since 1994, but Castle, who has never lost a race, has run statewide 12 times: once for lieutenant governor, twice for governor and nine times for the state's only congressional seat. In the past four elections he averaged 65 percent of the vote.

In 2010, each party will be defending 19 Senate seats. The high number of 38 reflects the fact that six of today's 100 serving senators were appointed, not elected -- one each from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy's replacement), New York (Hillary Clinton's replacement), Illinois (Barack Obama's replacement), Colorado (the replacement for Ken Salazar, who became interior secretary), Florida (the replacement for Mel Martinez, who quit) and Delaware.

In Colorado, where Democrats have won the last two Senate races, the appointed Democrat, Michael Bennet, faces a primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the state House. Annoyed because the governor did not appoint him to replace Salazar, Romanoff spurned the plea of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner that he not challenge Bennet. The Republican nominee may be a former statewide winner -- Jane Norton, who served as lieutenant governor.

In Illinois, which has not elected a Republican senator since 1998, the front-runner for the GOP nomination is Mark Kirk, a five-term representative from the Chicago suburbs, where statewide elections often are decided. He annoyed his party by voting for the cap-and-trade legislation, but he has sort of semi-apologized.

Connecticut's Sen. Chris Dodd, seeking a sixth term, has an approval rating of 43 percent and has drawn several serious Republican challengers. Any incumbent with a job approval below 50 percent should worry; In Nevada, Harry Reid's is below 40.

Three seats held by Republicans are in jeopardy: Missouri's (Kit Bond is retiring), Ohio's (George Voinovich is retiring) and New Hampshire's (Judd Gregg is retiring). But Republicans have strong candidates in each state: in Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt, former House Republican whip; in Ohio, Rob Portman, former representative, head of the Office of Management and Budget, and trade representative; in New Hampshire, a possible nominee, former state attorney general Kelly Ayotte, who is ahead of her likely Democratic opponent.

In the House elections, substantial Republican gains are possible. As analyst Charles Cook notes, 84 House Democrats represent districts that were carried either by George W. Bush in 2004 or by John McCain in 2008, and 48 of those districts were carried by both Bush and McCain. These and other uneasy incumbents know that Congress's job approval rating is 22 percent.

Much can change, nationally and locally, before Nov. 2, 2010. But perhaps the most politically salient thing is unlikely to change: high unemployment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the economy, which has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, must create 100,000 a month just to match population growth. Joseph Seneca, a Rutgers economist, estimates that even if job creation were immediately to reach the pace of the 1990s -- an average of 2.15 million private-sector jobs were added each year, double the pace of that between 2001 and 2007-- the unemployment rate would not fall to 5 percent until 2017.

September's 9.8 percent unemployment rate was the worst since June 1983. But robust growth began then, and just 17 months later Ronald Reagan came within 3,800 Minnesota votes of carrying all 50 states. Reagan, however, was reducing government's burdens -- taxes, regulations -- on the economy. Obama is increasing them.

The possibility of Republican gains, especially in the Senate, helps explain why Obama is in such a rush to remake the nation and save the planet. His window of opportunity could be closing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:42 AM

How to Engage Iran
A fellow Nobel Peace laureate offers some friendly advice, and a rebuke, to President Obama.


Thursday, October 15, 2009

SHIRIN EBADI, a 62-year-old Iranian lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize six years ago, is generally cautious and measured in her speech. She is a human rights lawyer who says that she does not involve herself in politics. She says that it's not her job to favor one party over another, as long as the government respects people's right to express themselves.

So it was startling this week to hear Ms. Ebadi say bluntly that the Obama administration has gotten some things backward when it comes to Iran. It's not that engaging with the government is a mistake, she said during a visit to The Post. But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Administration officials point out that they have not focused exclusively on the nuclear issue. President Obama has spoken out in support of democracy forces, and Undersecretary of State William J. Burns put human rights on the agenda during his meeting with an Iranian official in Geneva this month. Ms. Ebadi acknowledged that Mr. Obama has said "that the voice of the people needs to be heard. But he needs to repeat the statement again and again, so that people in Iran hear him."

Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

The courage it takes to say such things may be difficult for Americans to comprehend. Ms. Ebadi's husband, 67, and her brother and sister are called in for questioning every week, she said, and pressured to pressure her. Many of her clients are in prison, some now facing the death penalty. She herself intends to return to her homeland. But the events of the summer -- the prematurely announced election results, the shootings of peaceful protesters in the street and on university campuses, the rapes of imprisoned protesters, the ghoulish show trials of alleged traitors to the regime -- seem to have convinced her that she must speak out.

"Mr. Obama has extended the hand of friendship to a man who has blood on his hands," she said. "He can at least avoid shaking the hand of friendship with him."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:57 AM

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration's requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.

Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts.

"These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said.

Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators' home states or campaign contributors, amounts to "rancid gluttony," he said.

The administration's budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:34 AM

EDITORIAL: Fox hunting

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Let's face it. Fox News runs stories that the Obama administration would rather ignore - from the sleaziness and corruption in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to the bizarre views and actions of senior presidential appointees such as Van Jones and Kevin Jennings.

Last weekend, the Obama administration declared war. "We're going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. She claimed, "We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." The administration has begun using a government blog to regularly attack what it calls "Fox lies."

The administration already was boycotting the network. In late September, President Obama had time to answer questions from CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," CNN's "State of the Union" and Univision's "Al Punto," but not "Fox News Sunday." There is irony in Miss Dunn complaining to the New York Times about Fox News being "an opponent" and that "people who watch Fox News believe it's the home team."

Although the Obama team doesn't trust Fox News, a surprisingly large number of Democrats do. A new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll released on Sept. 13 shows that Fox News is more trusted - even by Democrats - than the New York Times. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent feel the same way about the Times. Among Republicans and independents, Fox News does have huge 56 and 26 percentage point leads.

As the survey indicates, Fox's audience is not just composed of conservatives but includes plenty of liberals and moderates, too. This probably is because viewers appreciate hard-hitting news that is different from the administration line regurgitated everywhere else on TV. Its independence helps explain why Fox News regularly has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News combined.

Data illustrates that Fox is more evenhanded than its competitors. A Pew analysis showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Mr. Obama as well as 40 percent of those on Sen. John McCain were negative during the last six weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. By contrast, CNN had a 22 percentage point gap and MSNBC a 59 percentage point spread in favor of Mr. Obama. The White House is so protected by soft-focus coverage that anything not tilted its way is considered an act of war.

With Democrats controlling both Congress and the presidency, the Obama administration is trying to squash dissent. The administration is not content with attacking critical press. It is boldly proceeding with plans for the Federal Communications Commission to meddle in conservative talk radio. It threatens insurance companies with not being able to participate in federal programs if those companies attempt mildly to warn customers about how new health care legislation will affect them.

Mr. Obama walks a dangerous trail famously taken by President Nixon when he attempted to freeze out The Washington Post. That strategy didn't work so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:30 AM

Careful to a Fault on Afghanistan

By David Ignatius
Thursday, October 15, 2009

Afghanistan could be the most important decision of Barack Obama's presidency. Maybe that's why he is, in effect, making it twice.

What's odd about the administration's review of Afghanistan policy is that it is revisiting issues that were analyzed in great detail -- and seemingly resolved -- in the president's March 27 announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The recent recommendations from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal were intended to implement that "Af-Pak" strategy -- not send the debate back to first principles.

The March document stated that the basic goal was "to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al-Qaeda safe haven that it was before
9/11." But to accomplish this limited mission, the president endorsed a much broader effort to "reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." That gap between end and means has bedeviled the policy ever since.

So now the president is doing it again, slowly and carefully -- as in last Friday's three-hour White House meeting, where, I'm told, he went around the table and quizzed his national security aides one by one.

Obama's deliberative pace is either heartening or maddening, depending on your perspective. Personally, I think he's wise to take his time on an issue in which it's so hard to know the right answer. But I worry that the White House approach will soften the edges so much that the policy itself will be fuzzy and doomed to failure.

As Obama's advisers describe the decision-making process, it sounds a bit like a seminar. National security adviser Jim Jones gathers all the key people so that everyone gets a voice. A top official explains: "We don't get marching orders from the president. He wants a debate. . . . We take the competing views and collapse them toward the middle." This approach produced a consensus on Iran and missile defense, and as National Security Councils go, Obama's seems to work pretty smoothly. Jones is now master of his own house after a rocky start in which he clashed with an inner "Politburo" of aides who had been with Obama during the campaign. Those younger aides are now out or in different jobs, putting Jones more firmly in charge. Obama will be happy to have a retired Marine four-star general at the NSC when it comes time to sell his Afghanistan policy to the military.

Obama's top advisers all stress how different his style is from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. And it's true, occasionally to a fault. One top aide draws the contrast this way: "Pragmatism versus ideology; thoroughness of review versus instant decisions; consensus versus go-it-alone." On Afghanistan, this aide stresses, Obama wants to avoid any semblance of a "rush to war." Nine months on, that doesn't seem like a danger.

Where Bush was chief executive -- with an approach that could be described as "decide or delegate" -- Obama is more a chairman of the board. Bush's tendency to make snap judgments led to some disasters, but as James B. Stewart described it in a recent New Yorker article, Bush correctly left key decisions in the September 2008 financial crisis to his Fed chairman and Treasury secretary, telling them: "If you think this has to be done, you have my blessing." For better or worse, it's hard to imagine Obama making a similar delegation of authority.

Obama's challenge on Afghanistan is to identify a mission there that is achievable, and then to provide the necessary resources. He has ruled out simply walking away from the Afghanistan war -- which he rightly sees as a reckless course at a time when neighboring Pakistan is facing its own brutal onslaught from the Taliban.

But what is an achievable goal for U.S. forces? Stabilizing the whole country is Mission Impossible, I'm afraid. McChrystal thinks that with some additional troops, the United States could provide security for major population centers in the south and east. This would buy some time to train the Afghan army and encourage President Hamid Karzai's efforts to reach a political reconciliation with the Taliban. Is this strategy really doable, and if so, at what cost? I'm still looking for answers to those questions and so, evidently, is Obama.

Obama had the basic point on Afghanistan right in March: "We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake but because our own peace and security depends on it." It's Afghanistan's war. Obama needs to decide -- soon -- how the United States can best help Kabul in a way that's politically sustainable in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:45 AM

Chongo is pissed because no one has started a thread like this about him.

Of course, he hasn't been elected president.

Yet.

Just wait!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:21 AM

President Obama's Trip to New Orleans Draws Criticism -- Before He Even Arrives
Four Years Later, Local Residents Complain the Short Presidential Visit Is a 'Glorified Flyover'
By KAREN TRAVERS and MATTHEW JAFFE
Oct. 15, 2009

Obama will visit the Martin Luther King Charter School in the city's Lower 9th Ward, a neighborhood devastated by the floodwaters of Katrina after the city's levees were breached. The charter school was the first to be rebuilt following Katrina. On the second anniversary of the hurricane, former President George W. Bush visited the school and met with Louisiana education officials.

Obama will also hold a town hall meeting with members of the New Orleans community.

But before the president even steps foot on the ground in Louisiana, critics in the region have taken aim at the administration on several fronts: They fault him for waiting nine months before going to New Orleans, staying for only four hours and not going to any of the other states affected by the devastating 2005 storm, such as Mississippi and Alabama.

Tommy Longo, the mayor of Waveland, Miss., a town that was leveled by Katrina, said that Obama was "missing the Ground Zero of Katrina."

"We haven't whined. My citizens get up every day and they go to work, rebuilding their city from under the ground up, and it would mean a lot to them if they knew that they were on his mind," Longo said of the president. "It would mean a lot to everyone if he actually put his feet on the ground here in Waveland."

Even Louisiana officials have voiced displeasure with the trip and want more from the president.

"I think the trip could have been longer," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in a television interview Wednesday. "But I want to say that people are not angry. If they're anything, they're just a little disappointed and frustrated, but understanding that the president has a lot on his plate.

The White House said that the trip demonstrates the president's "strong commitment to Gulf Coast rebuilding and recovery."

Administration officials noted that since taking office in January, their measures to speed up federal aid have already freed up more than $1 billion toward public infrastructure for Louisiana.

Others say that the White House deserves credit for the steps it has taken but may be making a public relations mistake with the short visit.

"I fear Obama is mismanaging the political theater of Katrina," Lawrence Powell of Tulane University told ABC News. "Granted, he and his administration deserve plaudits for unblocking recovery funds and cutting needless red tape, but the people down here can't be reassured often enough that the president 'gets' the problem -- the sluggish recovery, the vanishing coastline, the social 'Katrinas' that are making our mean streets even meaner and more dangerous."

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:27 AM

Foreclosures: 'Worst three months of all time'

Despite signs of broader economic recovery, number of foreclosure filings hit a record high in the third quarter - a sign the plague is still spreading.

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 15, 2009: 7:34 AM ET

Foreclosure crisis

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite concerted government-led and lender-supported efforts to prevent foreclosures, the number of filings hit a record high in the third quarter, according to a report issued Thursday.

"They were the worst three months of all time," said Rick Sharga, spokesman for RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed homes.

During that time, 937,840 homes received a foreclosure letter -- whether a default notice, auction notice or bank repossession, the RealtyTrac report said. That means one in every 136 U.S. homes were in foreclosure, which is a 5% increase from the second quarter and a 23% jump over the third quarter of 2008.

Nevada continued to be the worst-hit state with one filing for every 23 households. But even tranquil Vermont, where the foreclosure crisis has barely brushed the housing market, saw foreclosure filings jump nearly 170% compared with the third quarter of 2008. Still, that resulted in just one filing for every 5,023 households in the state -- the best record in the country.

The RealtyTrac report also unveiled the results for September, and it found that there was slight relief from foreclosure filings. Last month, notices totaled 343,638, down 4% compared with August. Unfortunately, that total accounts for 87,821 homes that were repossessed by lenders.

That deluge contributed significantly to the quarter's record 237,052 repossessions, a 21% jump from the previous three months. So far this year lenders have taken back 623,852 homes.

"REO activity increased from the previous quarter in all but two states and the District of Columbia, indicating that lenders may be starting to work through some of the pent-up foreclosure inventory caused by legislative delays, loan-modification efforts and high volumes of distressed properties," James Saccacio, RealtyTrac's CEO, said in a statement.

Most disturbing is that all foreclosures -- not just repossessions -- are rampant despite efforts to corral them. Not only has the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable foreclosure prevention program taken a bite out of REOs but lenders themselves have scaled back repossessions over the past few months to give the program time to work.

And in some low-price markets, lenders simply aren't following through on foreclosures, according to Jim Rokakis, treasurer for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes Cleveland.

"They'll even set the date for the sheriff's sale, but they don't file the final papers," he said. "They hold it in abeyance and let the residents stay in the house."

In ever more frequent cases, delinquent borrowers want out of the mortgage worse than the lenders. There are no firm statistics for it, but many industry watchers claim the percentage of REOs caused by borrowers voluntarily walking away from their homes is skyrocketing.

A study of the trend by the Chicago Booth School of Business and the Kellogg School of Management determined that when home price declines drop home values 10% below the mortgage balances, people start to give up their homes. When "negative equity" approaches 50%, 17% of households default, even when they can still afford their mortgage payments.

No end in sight
The foreclosure crisis may not diminish anytime soon. "The fastest growing area is in the 180 days late-plus category, the most seriously delinquent borrowers," Sharga said. "It's going to be a lingering problem."

Plus, the RealtyTrac statistics may understate the depth of the foreclosure mess because lender and government actions have delayed many filings. As a result, some delinquencies have not been counted on the foreclosure tallies. That means the crisis may not end quickly.

And because there are so many delinquent borrowers, Sharga predicts the banks will be slow to take back their properties and put the repossessed homes back on the market.

"It's hard to envision [the banks] putting millions on properties up for sale and cratering prices," he said. "Recovery will be slow and gradual. I don't see home prices getting much better until 2013."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:14 PM

What a LOT of clatter and claptrap, Bruce!

FOX is not antagonizing the Administration by "running stories", but by consistently presenting bias and distortion. It is disingenuous of you to blandly re-post long twisted tales from them as aren't willing or able to clarify the facts of the matter. Who cares about yammer? There are real things to concern oneself with, and on that fron the Obama Administration is marching ahead deliberately making things better, despite all the sturm und drang. Your columnists seem to subscribe to the "sound and fury" school of journalism, signifying nothing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:49 PM

Aha! He gothcha, Amos. I thought you'd given up rising to the bait.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:41 PM

Yeah, I had the same hought just after I hit the Submit button, LH. It's just bait; there's no real "there" there.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM

If the USA pulls out of Afghanistan, will it mean the fall of the Pakistani government and Al Quaeda will eventually obtain nukes?

Will the US have to invade again on a much larger and costlier scale to beat back Al Quaeda again?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:53 PM

The best thing that could have been done for Pakistan was for the Russians and Americans to stay out of that region. If they had, then the Mujahedeen, the forerunners of the Taliban, would never have been dredged up out of the Islamic fundamentalist abyss by the CIA, funded by the USA to kill Russians...Afghanistan would never have been invaded by either Russia or America...neither the Taliban nor Al Queda would ever have gotten a base there...and Pakistan would not have been destabilized as it has been in the past 25 years by a massive influx of Aghan refugees and guerrilla fighters.

It is the Russians and the Americans, by their imperial actions, who gave birth to the Taliban and Al Queda.

Pakistan has suffered the fallout from that.

The Pakistani military warned the USA back when it was funding and gathering Islamic fundametalists to kill Russians that those actions were giving birth to a "Frankenstein monster" which would come back to haunt both Pakistan and the USA.

The USA paid no attention to those warnings. They were intent on damaging the Russians and that was all they thought about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:10 PM

Excuuuse me But the US aided the Afghans in their efforts in expelling the Russians and then left Afghanistan on it's own when it should have stayed.

The mujahideen received support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other nations besides the US.

All this dark a cynical crap about the CIA dredging up fundamentalist is garbage.

You need to study a little history. The place has been fucked over by different groups and countries including the Median Empire, Persians, Alexander the Great, Seleucians, Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols and invaded by the British.

D you know what the Durand Line is?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM

You're mistaken. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:29 PM

What I mean is, you're mistaken about the CIA and the USA not acting in such a way as to gather together Islamic fundamentalist fighters in the 80's, thereby sowing the seeds that sprouted into the Taliban. Yes, the Saudis were involved too. Of course. The Saudis are American allies. Yes, there were elements in Pakistan which assisted as well...but the Pakistan military and governmental people warned the USA against encouraging extremist Islamic fundamentalist factions in the 80's. The USA didn't listen to those warnings.

The client government that the Russians left in Afghanistan as they pulled out in the late 80's was a far less extreme outfit than the Taliban wich later took over. It was headed by a man named Najibullah. That government fairly much controlled the cities at the time, while the people who became the Taliban controlled much of the countryside. It was the USA which continued to fund and arm those Islamic fundamentalists...with an intention of destroying Najibullah's government. Regime change. Well, they eventually succeeded in bringing about that regime change, and the Taliban took over Aghanistan...and that was the worst thing that could possibly have happened.

I'm saying, Sawzaw, that Afghanistan has suffered from outside interference by TWO imperial powers.

First - The Soviets.

Second - The USA.

Both the Soviets and the USA, between them, have utterly ruined Afghanistan and have fairly much ruined Pakistan as well (as collateral side effect from Afghanistan.

It is not the fault of Afghans or Pakistanis that this has happened. It's the fault of imperial policy by TWO imperialist nations: Russia and the USA.

And I sympathize with neither one of them one bit. If I was an Aghan or a Pakistani, I'd say "to hell with both Russia and the USA".

Your error, Sawzaw, is that you imagine the USA is a "good guy" in the whole dammed scenario. It isn't, and it never was.

I am well aware that the Medes, Persians, Alexander the Great, Seleuceids, Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols and British have previously invaded Afghanistan too. But so what? What does it have to do with what I'm saying about Russia and the USA in the modern era? The reason Afghanistan has been invaded many times over the centuries is because it lies in a place where crucial trade routes from several major regions pass through a very restricted set of narrow mountain passes. That makes it a place that is bound to be fought over as competing empires seek to expand their turf and come into collision with their neighbors.

Yes, I do study history. I love it and always have loved it. ;-)

Never assume, just because you disagree with someone on some political matter, that he is ignorant, stupid, or anything else like that. I don't make those kind of assumptions about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 12:33 AM

Your history evidently begins with the Russian invasion. The US made a counter invasion. Maybe you should back up a bit.

The sun never sets on the British Empire.

I don't remember the USA making that claim.

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.

Anyway, while you are occupied by wiping your tears, looking in the rear view mirror, rehashing who did what and trying to blame somebody, Al-Quaeda will obtain nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:43 AM

The USA doesn't have to make such a claim as "the sun never sets on the American Empire", because it's self-evident and obvious to everyone that that is the case. The USA became the world's new greatest empire after the two world wars bankrupted the UK. Their main competitor for the title was the Soviets, and that put in place the Cold War, and Afghanistan has been a victim of that Cold War. For that I blame both the USA and Russia.

My point was that Afghanistan had a reasonably okay government and society before the Russians invaded them...and they've had a very bad situation ever since. Both Russia and the USA have made their situation very bad...and so did the Taliban, needless to say.

Correct, "the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets". Yes. And they did so at the behest of the USA. And they warned the USA that it was a dangerous policy which could lead to future problems for both Pakistan and the USA.

And it has done so.

You anticipate Al Qaeda obtaining some nukes? Perhaps. If a nuke is used on some American target in a terror attack...and then is attributed to Al Qaeda by your propaganda ministry (meaning your controlled and phony national "news" media)...whether or not it really came from Al Qaeda, which it probably won't...I know what it will be used to justify. It will be used to justify a major nuclear attack on Iran. In that attack many innocent people will die. I predict that virtually none of them will be members of Al Qaeda nor will Al Qaeda be hurt one bit by the American attack. They will be greatly helped by it. They will gain many new recruits in response to it.

And another false flag operation will have succeeded in causing another unjustified foreign war. But it will be a far more dangerous war than the ones we've seen in the last 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 11:20 PM

"self-evident and obvious to everyone that that is the case"

Now you are the judge and jury speaking for everyone. The UK did make that claim with out some pipsqueak representative claiming it was obvious.

Two world wars bailed out the UK. It was too big to fail or would rather have the US stay out?

You obviously harbor some sort of hatred or jealousy toward the USA.

Where would socialist Canada be with out a rich capitaist neighbor to feed off of?

The United States exported $160.9 billion in goods to Canada last year. But imports from Canada totaled $211.8 billion. The bottom line: a Canadian trade surplus (or American trade deficit) of $50.9 billion in 2002. It marked the third straight year in which Canada's advantage over the U.S. was more than $50 billion.

Canada can put every under producing citizen on the dole in the form of free medical care because it sells its natural resources to the USA.

Meanwhile you blame the USA for all of the evils in the world. but when a rich Canuck gets sick and their wonderful health care system fails them, they sneak into in the evil USA to get saved.

You can keep your beer, oosiks and those damned noisy geese that shit everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:34 AM

You can ignore anything that any other country did if it makes you feels better, heres a tissue.

During its time in power, the Taliban regime, or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia all of whom also provided aid. Most states in the world, including Russia, Iran, India, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and later the USA, opposed the Taliban and aided their enemy the Northern Alliance.
Relations with Pakistan

For a period of seven years since their origin, Pakistan's government had been the Taliban's main sponsor. It provided military equipment, recruiting assistance, training and tactical advice that enabled the band of village mullahs and their adherents to take control of Afghanistan.

Officially Pakistan denied it was supporting the Taliban, but its support was substantial—one year's aid (1997/1998) was an estimated $30 million in wheat, diesel, petroleum and kerosene fuel, and other supplies The Taliban's influence in its neighbour Pakistan was deep. Its "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies and interest groups enabled it "to play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy" even the powerful

Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools. These hopes faded as it began to be engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal, previously having implicitly supported the Taliban in order to build a pipeline south from Central Asia, the oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline.

In early August 1998 the Taliban's difficulties in relations with foreign groups became much more serious. After attacking the city of Mazar, Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally approved the killings. The Iranian government was incensed and a "full-blown regional crisis" ensued with Iran mobilizing 200,000 regular troops, though war was averted.

A day before the capture of Mazar, affiliates of Taliban guest Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa killing 224 and wounding 4500 mostly African victims. The United States responded by launching cruise missiles attacks on suspected terrorists camps in Afghanistan killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton. Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:54 AM

It's not only the promise of money that is motivating change. There seems to be some sort of status contest as states compete to prove they, too, can meet the criteria. Governors who have been bragging about how great their schools are don't want to be left off the list.

These changes mean that states are raising their caps on the number of charter schools. When charters got going, there was a "let a thousand flowers bloom" mentality that sometimes led to bad schools. Now reformers know more about how to build charters and the research is showing solid results. Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University recently concluded a rigorous study of New York's charter schools and found that they substantially narrowed the achievement gap between suburban and inner-city students.

The changes also will mean student performance will increasingly be a factor in how much teachers get paid and whether they keep their jobs. There is no consensus on exactly how to do this, but there is clear evidence that good teachers produce consistently better student test scores, and that teachers who do not need to be identified and counseled. Cracking the barrier that has been erected between student outcomes and teacher pay would be a huge gain.

Duncan even seems to have made some progress in persuading the unions that they can't just stonewall, they have to get involved in the reform process. The American Federation of Teachers recently announced innovation grants for performance pay ideas. The New Haven school district has just completed a new teacher contract, with union support, that includes many of the best reform ideas.

There are still many places, like Washington, where the unions are dogmatically trying to keep bad teachers in the classrooms. But if implemented well, the New Haven contract could be a sign of perestroika even within the education establishment.

"I've been deeply disturbed by a lot that's going on in Washington," Jeb Bush said on Thursday, "but this is not one of them. President Obama has been supporting a reform secretary, and this is deserving of Republican support." Bush's sentiment is echoed across the spectrum, from Newt Gingrich to Al Sharpton.

Over the next months, there will be more efforts to water down reform. Some groups are offering to get behind health care reform in exchange for gutting education reform. Politicians from both parties are going to lobby fiercely to ensure that their state gets money, regardless of the merits. So will governors who figure they're going to lose out in the award process.

But President Obama understood from the start that this would only work if the awards remain fiercely competitive. He has not wavered. We're not close to reaching the educational Promised Land, but we may be at the start of what Rahm Emanuel calls The Quiet Revolution.

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:42 PM

Obama & Google (a love story)

Fortune magazine: ...Yet neither Obama's anticorporate leanings nor Google's anti-"politics as usual" culture has stopped the two camps from collaborating closely. Schmidt sits on Obama's Council of Science and Technology Advisers. Google employees acted as advisers to the Obama transition team -- in one case Google executive Sonal Shah actually led a meeting, to the surprise of at least one attendee -- and a handful of ex-Googlers have joined the administration in various roles.

The most visible appointee is Google's former head of global public policy, Andrew McLaughlin, who was named deputy chief technology officer in June. McLaughlin's appointment raised eyebrows -- in his previous role McLaughlin championed Google's policy goals. Now he'll be in a position to shape policy that affects Google's rivals. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says McLaughlin's appointment complies with the letter and spirit of the ethics standards Obama imposes on his administration...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:42 PM

Gallup poll October 23, 2009

"The majority of Americans do not believe President Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize (61%), but the public is split in its personal reaction to the announcement. Asked if they are "glad" Obama received the prize, 46% of Americans say yes and 47% say no."

Yassir Arafat earned his.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 10:33 PM

New York Times:

Norman Hsu, a former prominent Democratic fund-raiser, was sentenced Tuesday to more than 24 years in prison for bilking hundreds of investors of millions of dollars in a nationwide Ponzi scheme and committing campaign finance fraud.Judge Victor Marrero of United States District Court in Manhattan rejected Mr. Hsu's plea for leniency and cited what he called a "stunningly elaborate system of fraud and deceit."

From 2005 to 2007, the authorities said, Mr. Hsu had "straw donors" contribute more than $25,000 a year to federal candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal law.

When news that there was an outstanding warrant for Mr. Hsu's arrest became public, it turned into an embarrassment for Democratic politicians, particularly for Mrs. Clinton. The same politicians who once courted Mr. Hsu could not get rid of his money fast enough. Mrs. Clinton donated the money she received from Mr. Hsu to charity. Eliot Spitzer, Andrew M. Cuomo, Barack Obama and Al Franken did the same.

Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty in May to 10 counts of mail and wire fraud in connection with the Ponzi scheme, which prosecutors said lasted about a decade and defrauded over 250 investors of more than $50 million.Then, on May 19, after a trial, he was convicted of four counts of campaign finance fraud. Prosecutors presented evidence that from 2005 through 2007 he directed "straw donors" to contribute to the campaigns of various federal candidates whose favor he was trying curry, and that in some cases he reimbursed donors from the proceeds of his fraudulent scheme.

One candidate who received contributions was Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a senator, whose presidential campaign later returned about $850,000 to more than 200 donors who had been recruited by Mr. Hsu."Our system of government," Judge Marrero said before imposing the sentence of 292 months, "relies not only on scrupulous preservation of the rule of law but also on faith in the democratic processes by which our leaders are elected and govern."

He added, "Mr. Hsu's disgraceful use of political campaigns to perpetrate his Ponzi scheme, as well as his acts of campaign finance fraud, strike at the very core of our democracy." The United States attorney's office had asked the judge for a sentence of at least 30 years. Mr. Hsu, who the authorities say is 58, said he wanted to apologize to the court and to "everyone else." "I made a huge mistake, a terrible mistake," he said. Mr. Hsu's lawyer, Alan Seidler, said his client would appeal.

Judge Marrero said Mr. Hsu had "leveraged his relationships with prominent politicians, relationships largely garnered through the years of contributing vast sums of stolen money to political campaigns, in order to perpetuate his scheme." At trial, victims testified that Mr. Hsu displayed photographs of himself with political candidates, and at political events introduced them to candidates like Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama. Prosecutors played a recording for the jury of a voice mail message left by Mrs. Clinton for Mr. Hsu, lavishing him with praise for his support.

"I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone than you," she is heard saying. One prosecutor, Rua M. Kelly, objected to Mr. Hsu's request for leniency on grounds that he was offering to try to help victims recover their losses. She said much of the money was gone, spent by Mr. Hsu to support a luxurious lifestyle. Another prosecutor, Alexander J. Willscher, said Mr. Hsu had refused to meet with the government on the matter.

Ms. Kelly said the notion that Mr. Hsu is helping the government reclaim money for victims is "ludicrous." At one point, Judge Marrero said that Mr. Hsu's conduct, as in other white-collar crime cases, "summons the image of the wolf in sheep's clothing." The judge said, "It is the widespread recognition in the community that the defendant enjoys for strong character, integrity, sound social values and good public deeds that facilitates his hidden life of crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:04 PM

The $827 Billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

President-elect Obama said his administration will make the single, largest, new investment in the nation's infrastructure since the creation of the interstate highway system in the 1950s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, The New York Times reported. Governors told Obama they have $136 billion in road, bridge, water, and related projects ready to go; local regional transmit systems have $8 billion in projects that could begin immediately.

Reality:

SAN FRANCISCO Oct 28 2009– The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge has been closed indefinitely after a rod installed during last month's emergency repairs snapped, causing a traffic nightmare for the 26,000 motorists who cross the landmark span every day.

Engineers on Wednesday will evaluate the damage caused when the rod and metal brace fell into the 73-year-old bridge's westbound lanes during Tuesday evening's rush hour.

At least two vehicles — a car and a small truck — either were struck by or ran into the fallen rod, said California Highway Patrol Officer Peter Van Eckhardt, but no injuries were reported.

The California Department of Transportation said Tuesday that it will remain closed indefinitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:11 PM

Sawzaw...the very notion that I would be "jealous of the USA" is really laughable. I lived down there for 10 years, and there is nothing for a Canadian to be jealous of whatsoever about the USA, I assure you...except for the fact that you have some warmer regions in terms of the weather. I AM envious of that, but your stupid government and your wretchedly backward social system did not achieve that, Mother Nature did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM

Where would socialist Canada be with out a rich capitalist neighbor to feed off of?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:35 PM

Sawz:

In what way do you think Canada "feeds off" its capitalist neighbor? Do you have any facts to support that rather venomous characterization?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:08 PM

Canada's trade surplus with the United States, its biggest trading partner, was up by 500 million Canadian dollars [for the month of February] to 8.7 billion Canadian dollars ($7.06 billion), while imports from the United States declined 0.7 percent.

You can characterize that as venomous if you like.

Canada can pay for a lot of socialist programs with an extra $7 Billion per month eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:16 PM

At least 12,000 jobs "created" by President Obama's stimulus package are summer jobs for young people, according to a White House report issued on May 27, 100 days after passage of the $787-billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The White House report, "100 Days, 100 Projects," summarizes various projects on infrastructure, renewable energy and "jobs and job training."

"In that time, we've obligated over $100 billion dollars, created more than 150,000 jobs and started important projects in every state and territory of America," reads the report, written by Ed DeSeve, coordinator of recovery implementation at the White House.

Reality:

Ed DeSeve, serving as Obama's stimulus overseer, said the administration has been working for weeks to correct mistakes in early counts that identified more than 30,000 jobs paid for with stimulus money. He said a new stimulus report Friday should correct many mistakes an Associated Press review found that showed the earlier report overstated thousands of stimulus jobs.

"I think you'll see a pretty good degree of accuracy," DeSeve said in an interview.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs downplayed errors in job counts identified by the AP's review, telling reporters, "We're talking about 4,000, or a 5,000 error."

The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program — or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

• Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.

• A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.

• The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.

Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business' claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.

The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government's method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.

The AP's review sampled some of the contract data reported on the government's Web site, recovery.gov, that serves as the official accounting of stimulus data. The review focused on the most obvious cases of jobs wrongly tied to the stimulus because of record duplications or misinterpretations of how the jobs should be counted. In some cases, businesses reported short-term projects with large job counts, which appeared inaccurate in the records. The AP contacted businesses to discuss their jobs reports and confirmed the errors.

Some businesses actually undercounted jobs funded with stimulus money, the AP's review shows, because they reported only new jobs created, not existing jobs saved. But by far the most reporting errors were found in the number of jobs credited to the stimulus.

Gibbs said that early data couldn't be reviewed as carefully as new data will be. "Three days after the data was received, it was required to be put on the Web site," he said.

The Colorado business' job count, along with many others, has been corrected, Gibbs said, and will be updated in Friday's report.

"We disputed, as the AP disputed, the report that came in that calculated a number of jobs but didn't accurately account, the way we account for, a full-time, yearlong employee as being a job," Gibbs said.

His comments during his daily meeting with reporters came hours after the White House issued a midnight press release complaining about the AP's review of jobs the government credits to stimulus spending.

DeSeve, who criticized the AP's review as misleading, said the administration is aware of problems with the early data. Agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.

"As a result, whatever problems the early and partial data had, the full data to be posted on Friday will provide the American people with an accurate, detailed look at the early success of the Recovery Act," DeSeve said in a statement the White House issued just after midnight Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:23 AM

"Socialist" Canada?

What the hell are you talking about? Canada is full of capitalism, Sawzaw. Didn't you know that? Come up here sometime and find out. Most of the human activity I see happening around here is capitalist activity. Capitalist businesses and services and corporations are everywhere, and that's perfectly normal.

I don't think you have any understanding of what socialism really is. Or of the fact that some socialist institutions simply HAVE to exist in any modern society, such as: the government, the army, the police, the fire department, and a bunch of other things like that which are utterly essential to the running of any modern society...and which can't earn a profit anyway, so no wonder the government does them.

You can't NOT have them. That doesn't make a society a "socialist" society.

We are a primarily capitalist society with a few essential public services which can be characterized as socialist. In that respect we are very much like every other modern society in the world, including yours.

We just happen to have a much better health plan than you do, that's all, and it costs me less than $1,000 a year in my taxes which is way less than you pay in taxes for the health system you have in the USA. And I get free health care after paying my taxes. And you don't.

That does not make Canada "socialist". I laugh at the notion. Anyone who comes here can plainly see that capitalism is the ruling order of the day in Canada.

If Canada is "socialist" by your definition, my friend, then so is the USA. Think about that for a minute. If having ANY socialism AT ALL makes a society "socialist", Sawzaw, then you have been living in a "socialist society" all your life!

Try to think not in terms of all-or-nothing, but in terms of both-and, and you will begin to appreciate the reality of the situation, and you won't bother anymore to say "socialist Canada", because it's a non-sequitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:26 AM

A year has passed since the history-making election that proclaimed Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, and national polls suggest that for many Americans the "honeymoon" is over. In Washington, however, each political bump this new administration suffers seems only to strengthen the city's love affair with the first family.

When I spent a few days there recently, Washington still felt fully in thrall to Obamania. Indeed, those few people I encountered who could recall ancient history - meaning, the previous administration - were quick to describe what a pall George W. Bush cast over the nation's capital. Besides frequently bragging about how his tax policies were "starving the beast," (that beast, of course, being Washington), President Bush was famously uninterested in the city's cultural and culinary attractions. His most memorable dining experience in the capital, one wag told me, was the pretzel that nearly caused him to choke to death.

"President Bush was always dissing Washington, but Barack Obama doesn't," said Peggy Clifton, a researcher at the Library of Congress. "So, most people who live and work here are much happier now. We feel like there's finally someone in the White House who respects what this town actually does - which is govern."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:29 AM

In his midnight mission to honor the returning war dead, President Obama did more than personally extend the nation's condolences to grieving families gathered at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Without uttering a public word, Mr. Obama erased President George W. Bush's shameful attempts to hide the pain of war from Americans and to shield himself from paying public tribute to the thousands who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The long-overdue display of national gratitude and regret by the commander in chief rekindled a note of most solemn ritual that the country owes sons and daughters in uniform sacrificed in war. The president was restoring a post-Vietnam tradition that included the graphic embraces and wrenching words personally extended by President Ronald Reagan to the families of the 241 soldiers, sailors and Marines who perished 26 years ago in the bombing of the Marines' camp in Lebanon.

The Bush policy was to prohibit any news media coverage of the returning war dead and to never show the president within a camera-lens' length of the dolorous homecomings. Under Mr. Obama, the Pentagon reversed the no-coverage policy in February. On Thursday, the president himself took the necessary next step.

He silently saluted in the morning darkness as the remains of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were transferred from a military transport. He spent close to two hours talking in private with stricken families. One of them gave approval for the news media to show the nation its loved one's arrival before the president and assembled officers. ...

The true cost of war must never be denied by the nation or its leader. Mr. Obama's visit was entirely appropriate as he faces the decision of what comes next in Afghanistan. The pity is President Bush never dared as much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:18 PM

Amos? Sawzaw? BB? If you guys ever get a chance to come up for air from the partisan depths you are wallowing in on this thread... ;-) ...cos let's face it, Sawzaw and BB come here for one purpose only: to dump on Obama and the Democrats....and Amos comes here for one purpose only...to praise Obama and dump on the Republicans...

Well, anyway, if you DO ever come up for air and get a whiff of true freedom without either one of those wretched frikking parties....

I've got some great photos of Dachshunds to show you.

Yes! I do. And we can sit around, drink the libations of your choice, and admire the wonders of wiener dogs and forget all about partisan carping for awhile. What say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM

LH,

Just join us at the Getaway.



Amos,

Care to tell wher you grabbed your post of 30 Oct 09 - 10:29 AM from? I know you did not write it- as it has obvious falsehoods in it. Bush met with a number of families of the fallen, and did not make a press event of it. Please check the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:39 PM

Bruce:

A NYT editorial, sorry I left the tag out. And let me add that Mr Bush certainly created the impression he wanted to hide (and hide from) the consequences of his militaristic adventuring.

Little Hawk, go soak your head.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:42 PM

I intend to soak my entire body, not just my head. A nice hot bath does wonders for the nerves. ;-)