Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
WAR. (That's a pretty important one for me personally.)
|
The Iraq war is coming to a conclusion under its natural time frame and has little to do with Obama. Obama is expanding the war effort in Afghanistan. In Afgahnistan the Obama administration recently made a determination that "enemy combatants" don't have a right to habeous corpus no different than what Bush did with the people detained at Gitmo. Oh, and Gitmo is still open.
---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand.
|
The earmarks thing was simply the item of the day. Today, it is the AIG thing. Obama is demanding they rescind the bonuses paid. Why did he support giving them the "bailout" without the controls to "protect the tax payers" that he said was in place? Was he duped by AIG? Was he lying when he said controls were in place? Did he even read the bailout legislation he supported for AIG? Is he just turning the issue in to a "political" issue to divert attention from his failure with the Treasury Dept?
---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Find me a quote where Obama said he would eliminate earmarks?
|
Let's not pretend Obama was silent on this issue. No matter how we parse his language, the only reason Obama talked about earmarks at all was because of McCain. Obama knew he needed to take some of that issue away from McCain so that his spending proposals would not seem as radical as they actually were. Obama talking about earmarks was purely political, pure showmanship, pure b.s., and we on the right knew it, Congress knew it, his special interests base knew it, and the rest simply did not care. Those in the "did not care" category, please be honest about it.