Me, dodging? O.k., I will forget what I asked you and address your question.

Obama's proposed cyberspace security program will not adversely affect me directly, just as the the secretive TSP program did not adversely affect me directly.

Detainees are being detained in a humane fashion some have been released, some will be released, and some are still considered a threat and will not be released. I don't see a difference between the two administrations.

I don't feel this answers your question, but I am not sure i understand your question.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

I know, we have discussed the above topics to death and will never agree, relative to Bush. But the reality is - the recession is getting worse. The war in Afghanistan is leading us nowhere. There are increasing threats from Iran and N. Korea. We have an increasing national debt. And, nothing has been done regarding global warming, even thou the planet is cooling. I know it has only been x months, it is Bush's fault, and Republicans don't have a plan, Palin is just the worst person in the world, and that FOX News Channel...

I'm not saying it's just Bush's fault. There are so many people to blame, just naming half of them would crash the forum. He's one of many, many people. Still President Obama was given a monumental task and he has made significant strides forward on many fronts, including those repeatedly listed by DC_Dux.

Also, Iran is not an increasing threat. That's simply untrue. Let's not exaggerate.

Let's See How Many Excuses We Can Find
 

Shall we let this assault on the Constitution stand? Or will we make excuses for The One? Personally, I'm betting on the latter. . .

JULY 8, 2009
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - WSJ.com

(Story cont...)

Mr. Johnson said such prisoners held without trial would receive "some form of periodic review" that could lead to their release.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading Republican on detainee policy, approved. "Some of them will be able to get out of jail because they've rehabilitated themselves and some of them may in fact die in jail," Mr. Graham said. But "I don't want to put people in a dark hole forever" simply "because somebody like Dick Cheney, or you fill in the blank with a politician, said so." [...]

Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - WSJ.com

How fun, having to clean up after Bush's dirty work.

People seem to forget that, it took Dubya 8 years to fuck things up, yet 'The One' is supposed to fix it in 6 months and everything should be sunshine and lollypops, oh how quickly people forget the clusterfuck their guy Bush left behind.

Why is that? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the ADD your boy Bush suffered from when he got bored with Afghanistan and wanted to 'get the man who tried to kill my daddy'.

Increasing threats from Iran? Better attack them then, we all know how well that turned out the last 2 times that happened.

What part of prohibiting enhanced interrogation techniques (that Bush approved), closing CIA black prisons (that Bush authorized) and ending rendition to countries that torture their citizens (that Bush allowed) dont you understand?

I dont recall Obama every pledging to completely dismantle the national security infrastructure as it regards detainees, but to provide far greater balance between ensuring personal rights v protecting national security.

The Bush administration sought to clarify the issue of lawful enhanced interrogation and torture. Many have come to the conclusion that water boarding is and should legally be considered torture.

The Bush administration operated within the law. However, Obama, said the law was violated - but failed to act on what he and his Justice Department considered illegal. His failure to act, defacto, validates what Bush did.

What is worse the issue of defining what is and what is not torture has not been clearly defined under Obama. The "Fear-up" provision in the Army Field Manual is a bit vague, and allows for the use of exploiting fear, real or imagined. Perhaps, introducing the fear of drowning fits into that, what do you think?

{added} I should not have assumed that people who read this actually read the Army Field Manual. I did a Google search and came across an interesting article on the subject of torture and the Manual. It also quoted the "Fear-up" provision in the manual. Interested people may want to read the article and the Manual.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/11780...l_does/?page=1

ace....you're still bobbing and weaving and avoiding the central question.

The issue is not what is perceived as legal or not...we've had that debate.

The issue raised in the OP is if Obama represents a Bush third term.

Based on specific policy actions...

Bush approved enhanced interrogation....Obama overturned that approval.
Bush approved the use of CIA black prisons...Obama overturned that approval.
Bush approved rendition to countries that torture their own citizens... Obama overturned that approval.
The Obama DoJ is developing policies to provide more rights to detainees than provided by Bush.

...the question is simple...Were their policies the same?

You can pretend "enhanced interrogation" is a thing of the past, I don't.


Read the fine print. Obama reserved the right to undo the order if he think the need arises and:

Obama orders CIA prisons, Gitmo shut - White House- msnbc.com

So, I guess the CIA can take someone to France and still use "Fear-up" to subject the person to all kinds of things that Obama and his supporters are so, so outraged about.

Yes, Bush had a way of seeking the best to get the job done. I am not sure I would use the white sandy beaches of Fiji to conduct a rendition, but if that is what Obama wants - elections do have consequences.

This has run its course. You believe there is a material difference between Bush and Obama on this issue, I don't.

Earlier I used the word vague to characterize the Army Field Manual's "Fear-up" provision. that was not the correct word. When I read that provision it has a very specific meaning - if I am questioning a suspect, I can just about do whatever the hell I want as long as the suspect does not become unresponsive.

Obama is a master at spin, for that I give him credit.:thumbsup:

ace...I see a master of spin every time you are unwilling or unable to answer a simple direct question if it might challenge your position.

Pat yourself on the back. (not a personal attack, a compliment to your steadfastness to the max) :thumbsup:

Again, I am not clear on what direct question I have left unanswered here.

If your point is that Obama has undone somethings Bush did, we can agree. However, some of his actions are superficial while he leaves the impression that they are material changes. If you read Roach's post on 7/7 and my response, it is clear these illustrations have no real value but are simply entertaining to me and perhaps others. I realize that at some point Obama supporters may find it increasingly difficult to defend the indefensible, and some acknowledge when they disagree with Obama's actions and some don't. On the topic of rendition, enhance interrogation, torture, you see material change, I don't. So, what question remains?

just an interjection here, but if we've had so many years of absolute republican rule, wouldn't we be in a utopia by now according to fox news?

well, ace, i think that most of the questions that remain are psychological. like what you're capable of seeing, what you're not, why that is. you're in an imaginary fight with imaginary obama supporters whose politics are nothing more than the reverse image of your own. what gives this projection its traction is movement generated by the stream of conservative-specific factoids that constitute the "evidence" in this thread. if you actually bother to read through it, you see alot of different types of expressions of ambivalence concerning some of obama's actions, which typically have followed those few moments when the conservative-specific infotainment/ "Evidence" hasn't been so mangled that it says nothing except as a therapeutic matter for conservatives.

so there's no real there there ace.

you seem to be of this school--of which i sometimes think you're the only member--that confuses denial and principle, inflexibility with conviction. i don't understand the appeal of this, but maybe that's why i find so much troglodyte about contemporary american conservativism. a temperment problem at bottom. whether the world is small and rigidly defined or not. it's always possible to shrink the world, but why bother? same thing again.

I'm sure Ace isn't the only member of that group that features denial as a virtue.
Actually yes, that's what most of us are saying.

I find it ironic, that you direct that to me. I am one the few who will strongly defend those I am an admitted fanatic (even admitting that, should score me points) for and then will state when I don't support a position they have held or something they have done. I admit my biases. I admit when I am uninformed. I admit when I have not read something. I ask questions. And I explain how I come to my conclusions. And, I admit when my mind is closed on an issue. I even respond to your critiques of all of my many failings.

Do I imagine folks like DC, Will, etc? I don't understand your point.

Just as an example, nobody in the media or any where that I know of actually looked at the Army Field Manual to see how the policy contained in the manual actually compares to the guildlines the Bush administration developed. Just looking at the words, we took a step backwards under Obama, not forward.

Again, this is why I simply say some of this is pure entertainment for me.

Or, perhaps I am not that deep. Like I repeatedly state - I am a simple person. You make this way too complicated.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

But do you know what I have been saying.

It seems to me, given our exchanges on the issue of torture, that you would be concerned regarding the hype and the reality of what Obama actually did.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

Not sure about speaking for FOX, but all I want is an opportunity to accomplish my goals in life, live in freedom, and maintain personal choice. That gets us pretty close to utopia. I have gone from being a Republican to a Libertarian and back again. Republicans don't have all the right answers on all the issues nor do Libertarians - but they are on the correct side of my political leanings.

Don't pretend people's positions on these issues are as black and white as your seem to be. Read my first post in this thread:
Does that sound like someone overcome by hype? No. I'm pissed that President Obama isn't everything he promised, but I'm not so pissed that I'm blind to the changes he has actually made. Just because President Obama is screwing up doesn't mean he's the same as Bush.

I occasionally wonder why I feel as if I am the only one who will challenge some of the things presented by DC and/or will show the other side of an issue in the face of being dismissed as ignorant or regurgitating right wing talking points?

You're not the only one, there are plenty of conservatives on TFP. I think you might be one of the stronger Bush/Palin supporters, though, at least of those people that have been here for a while.

Why don't we do it this way: what in your view has Obama done since January to change what Bush had been setting up for 8 years?

I think as the elected leader of this country Obama used his bully pulpit, starting after his election to talk down our economy. I think there was a significant and measurable impact. I was not prepared for his negativity and the sudden change in American pride and "can do" spirit that normally comes from the office of the President.

Also, early on I stated from a policy point of view there would not be significant changes. However, now with unchecked Democrat Party control in Washington I fear the worst.

Mkay, let's try it this way, then. What in your view has Obama done since January to change what Bush had been setting up for 8 years?

Even Democrats say The One is like (Evil Nazi) Bush
 

Even Democrats say The One is like (Evil Nazi) Bush:

Democrats challenge Obama signing statement
Jul 21 01:27 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrin ed" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

I think he has taken the war effort in Afghanistan in a direction that lacks clarity. I don't know why he is sending in more troops, I don't know what he is trying to accomplish, I don't understand why he is antagonizing Pakistan. I thought Bush's approach was more "surgical" in nature and that he recognized the limitations in fighting a conventional war in that territory.

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

The fun in going after Obama has lost steam. No one is actually defending him any more. Bush was much more fun in terms of political discussion because you had very passionate views on both sides. With Obama, people like him as a person, but the specifics of his actions simply can not be defended based on the rhetoric he used to get elected, and of course now that he is in the "hot seat" speaking in broad generalities is meaningless.

Oh comon, the last thing President Bush did in office was send a "surge" into Afghanistan. When he left office, there were over 138,000 troops there. I don't know what you're basing your opinion that the approach was "surgical" on, but it seems that Obama quite literally is continuing exactly the same as Bush would have done.

Anyway, outside of Afghanistan, what changes have Obama made?

From the article you cited:

Since:

Obama orders 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan

Gates: Afghanistan Troop Levels Could Rise Again

US troop surge in Afghanistan 'could push Taliban into Pakistan' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Note the last comment - "destabilize Pakistan". Bush was being very careful in that regard. Obama is being reckless in both his words and his actions.

Obama White House breaks another promise to reject Bush ("Fascist") secrecy
 

If only The One hadn't made such a big deal out of the Bush ("Fascist") practice in order to get elected, no one would notice.

Well, at least it's bipartisan.

The still sort-of new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted yet another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor George W. Bush.

Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group's request for a list of healthcare industry executives who've been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss pending healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

According to the Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, which is suspicious of the influence of health industry lobbyists and company officers, it received a letter from the Secret Service citing an Obama Justice Dept. directive and denying access to visitor logs under the "presidential communications privilege."

Sound familiar?

Remember the holy hulabaloo in the early Bush years when Vice President Dick Cheney met in the White House compound with energy industry officials and refused to release a list of those executives and the frequency of their visits? That controversy was propelled by critical Democrats and was before Obama's brief Senate tenure.

But wait! Here are a few promises straight off the Obama Organizing for America website early this morning:
The Problem
Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Oh, and this:

Release Presidential Records: Obama and Biden will nullify the Bush attempts to....


...make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.
And this:

Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

These statements are on the same webpage as a highlighted Obama campaign quote: "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours."

The citizens ethics group has threatened to file a lawsuit against Obama as early as today despite an administration claim that it was reviewing policies.

But it's an inconsistency that someone might ask the president about at his Cleveland townhall meeting Thursday and/or during his primetime news conference this evening. (5 p.m. Pacific, 8 p.m. Eastern, 1 a.m. GMT). As usual, we'll be watching and have the full transcript here asap.

In recent weeks The Ticket has also been regularly chronicling Vice President Joe Biden's numerous "private meetings" both in the White House and his Delaware home with unidentified people on unnamed subjects.

And we wondered aloud how such secret get-togethers differed from Cheney's secret meetings. No answer.

But then the other day, as we duly noted here, Biden's White House schedule suddenly stopped listing "private meetings." Instead, it began calling them "meetings that are closed press." A distinction without any practical difference in terms of contradicting candidate Obama's promised governing transparency.

Obama White House breaks another promise to reject Bush secrecy | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Don't you think "The One" shit is getting a little stale and just a tad childish? I dont recall Obama or anyone associated with his campaign or administration referring to Bush policies as "fascist"..but hey, whatever makes you feel better.

In the latest news, I was disappointed to read that Obama's Detention Policy Task Force has requested an extension before releasing its final recommendations.

I would expect that there will be a continuation of some Bush policies...but significant differences as well, including:

The preliminary recommendations include prohibiting the admission of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; providing detainees greater latitude in the choice of counsel; affording basic protections for those defendants who refuse to testify; reforming the use of hearsay by putting the burden on the party trying to use the statement...

I dont expect that you will acknowledge the reversal of these Bush policies in the same manner that you ignored the complete reversal of Bush FOIA policies and other such directives.

For the record, I dont agree with the continuation of the policy that treats WH visitor logs as presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. But again, it is still under review.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

On the issue of "signing statements", another issue raised recently by wingnut bloggers...they are nearly as old as the executive branch, but Bush set new records, challenging (choosing to ignore) over 1,00 sections of bills in eight years, about twice the number of all previous presidents combined.

I dont recall Obama saying he would never use a "signing statement" but would be far more selective and more in the manner of Bush predecessors.

But I dont expect you to acknowledge that either.

You couldnt find a video that called him "The One" or "The Messiah"?

I agree that Obama was not very clear in his response to the question. I think the point is that signing statements can be used in a manner other than to to circumvent the policy intent of legislation enacted by Congress. ....that is what previous presidents did for the most part and I would expect Obama to do the same...and not follow the Bush model of using such statements at a record rate with the intent to direct the executive branch ignore specific policy provisions of bills he signs.

You only have to read the WH Memo on Presidential Signing Statements to understand that it is a reversal of the Bush policy and practice.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

you might also look at Obama's FOIA policy, much like his predecessors before drastically being altered by Bush/Ashcroft whose stated intent was a presumption to withhold information.

DC,

What's up. I like your new avitar. Hey, is it true that Congress voted to give DC residents the opportunity to legalize marijuana, but have failed to act on giving DC residents real representation in Congress? Is it possible for them to be more offensive to DC residents? Gee, let's get them doped up and ignore the representation issue? I guess we can't blame that on Republicans or Bush, can we?

Regards,

Ace


PS - Guess who this is - 'I reject the notion that martians are little green men with antennae who want to destroy this country. I think we can pass immigration reform without all the false and negative talk about martians. Can you imagine, some of those who oppose solving the immigration problem actually believe martians want to destroy this country?' Who is that? Isn't that your guy, Obama? Isn't that how he does it? How many times is he going to do that tonight with health care. Overs and unders, I betting at least 6 times, what do you think?

Ace...WTF?

It was actually the Republicans in the House who effectively killed the DC voting rights bill, (passed in the Senate), with an amendment to prohibit DC from enacting any gun control legislation.

The rest is gibberish....but if you have a gambling problem with your over/under, try gamblers anonymous.

Or try focusing on the topic at hand.

Gee, I was just trying to brighten your day, excuse me.

Thanks, I needed a "...it was actually the Republicans", fix. Got any Doritos?

Ace..i always get a laugh out of your posts. :thumbsup:

Since when is an emphatic "NO" [pause for applause], "not very clear?" His clarity cannot be in question, unless you wish to fall back on the Clinton Defense ("It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."). No, Mr. Obama used a supporter's question to launch into an exposition on why signing statements are unconstitutional. His audience knew exactly what he was saying and they applauded him for it.

Mr. Obama (who, by the way, taught constitutional law for 10 years) explains why a president cannot use signing statements, and I quote:

“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part. I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

Senator Obama did not explain that the practice was first used my James Monroe in the early 19th century or that President Clinton had, in fact, used signing statements more times than George W. Bush-- No, Constitutional Expert Obama said that the use of signing statements was evidence of Bush "making up laws." Mr. Obama then sited his experience as teacher of the Constitution to provide authority to his pronouncement that the use of signing statements is "not part of the president's power."

Funny how power changes all those wonderful lessons Mr. Obama taught on constitutional law …

You obviously dont want to read the official WH directive (memo) on signing statements but would prefer the remark at a town meeting that provided little context.

OK..thats your choice.
In fact, Bush used signing statements on specific provisions in bills much more than Clinton and all the previous presidents combined.

I am here to serve.

The White House released the list of health care execs attending meetings at the WH:
Another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor George W. Bush......I think not.

And we wondered aloud how such secret get-togethers differed from Cheney's secret meetings....There's your answer.

Hear yourself, OP!
Your answers don't satisfy?
Make up new ones.

The Most Transparent Administration EVAH!
 

The Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barofsky, made headlines this week when he estimated that the Obama administration had committed itself to spending as much as $24,000,000,000,000 to fix the American economy. The Treasury fired back at its own SIGTARP, saying that Barofsky inflated the numbers and that they had no intention of spending almost twice America’s annual GDP. In an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, Barofsky explains that the White House currently has dozens of programs dispensing cash, and that the caps on all of those add up to the $24-trillion mark:

Treasury Department Is Not Being Transparent

July 22, 2009 1:32 PM

. . . we spoke to Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), who just this week released a report on the whopping potential federal obligation of the bailout and other programs to jumpstart the economy.
. . .
Barofsky told us that the Treasury Department “is not being transparent with respect to the TARP,” the $700 billion in funds (and more) the government is using as loans and bailouts to help stabilize the financial markets. “They’ve failed to adopt some very basic recommendations we’ve had toward transparency,” he said.

Called the “SIGTARP,” Barofsky appeared before Congress this week and told them that the government’s commitment to fix the financial system could potentially reach $23.7 trillion, and criticized the Treasury Department for calling his team’s estimate “inflated.”

“I think that the Treasury Department ought to read the report before they make comments, at least the spokesperson’s office,” Barofsky said. “Our methodology is laid out in black and white in the report. ... As far as the numbers being inflated, where do you think we got the numbers from? We got it from the Treasury Department, we got it from the Federal Reserve. ... If these numbers are inflated, it’s because they inflated them when they put them out in the public, not because of us.”

The inspector general defended the numbers outlined in his report, saying that all his team has done is to “gather the 50 programs, put them in one place, and told the American people what the government has said about the maximum of each of these programs.”

“Perhaps their criticism is that we dare to do math,” he said. He added that his team tried to convince the Treasury that they were wrong, and that recipients should be required to report on how they use the federal funds, and those should be shown to the American people so that they know it’s “not being thrown into a black hole.”
. . .
“One, how much money is currently outstanding under the program. Two, what the high water mark has been since the inception of the bailout and then three, what is the total amount the federal government has said they’re willing to commit to each program. And at the end, we add them all up,” he explained. “That’s where the 23.7 trillion number comes from. It’s what the federal government has said would be the maximum number for each of the approximately 50 programs.”

Barofsky said “this recent attack on my report is really, in many ways, an attack on basic transparency -- of not wanting the American people in a certain way to see exactly what’s going on in their government as included in our report.” He said the Treasury Department “with respect to this program, they’ve not met their claims that this is going to be ‘unprecedented transparency,’” as President Obama suggested there would be.

We also spoke to Mr. Barofsky about whether taxpayers were misguided, on his independence being challenged by the Treasury and the personal toll of his job.
Podcast Interview with Inspector General for TARP: Treasury Department Is Not Being Transparent - Political Punch

Barokfsy later went on CNN to debunk his own numbers.

Its more like $3 trillion, including including loans that have yet to be, but are likely to be repaid....so it is probably far less than the $3 trillion.

Bailout: What's really at stake for taxpayers - Jul. 22, 2009

Added:
BTW, it was the Democratic Congress that pushed through legislation earlier this year, that Obama signed, that gave more authority to the TARP IG and strengthened the oversight of TARP......a measure the Republicans in the Senate stalled last session and Bush would not accept when the TARP legislation was initially enacted on his watch.

Transparency--- DOH!!!
 

What will President Obama do about that pesky CBO? The Chicago Way, perhaps?

CBO deals new blow to health plan
By: Chris Frates
July 25, 2009 02:47 PM EST

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.

"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."

But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.

Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.

"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.

But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.

Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.

House Republican Leader John Boehner's office said that it's time to hit the legislation's reset button.

"This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford."

White House Attempt at Public Intimidation of CBO Fails
 

The CBO released a new analysis of the House version of ObamaCare yesterday, after getting blasted by White House budget director Peter Orszag for “exaggerating” the costs associated with the proposal. Douglas Elmendorf tells Rep. Dave Camp (R), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, that the changes proposed by the White House will have little impact on their cost analysis, and that in fact the news gets worse in the second decade after the first runs up a $239 billion deficit:

The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the 10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year-budget window.

In other words, that $239 billion in Decade 1 was actually the good news. Why will it get worse?

As long as overall spending for health care continued to expand as a share of the economy, people’s share of insurance costs would continue to rise faster than their income, or the government’s subsidy costs would continue to rise faster than the tax base, or both. The proposal limits the share of income that eligible people would have to pay when they purchased coverage in the insurance exchanges, and that share of income would not change over time. In addition, insurance plans offered through the exchanges would be required to pay a specified share of costs for covered services (on average), and that share also would not change over time. Combining those provisions, increases in health care spending in excess of the rate of growth in income would be borne entirely by the federal government in the form of higher subsidy payments—because those payments would have to cover the entire difference between the total premium for insurance coverage and the capped amount that enrollees would pay.

It’s not exactly rocket-science mathematics on display here. If costs go up but premiums and health-insurance payments are capped, guess who pays for the rising costs? The federal government (Taxpayers). The Obama administration will claim that they’ve capped costs and people will see their direct payments to health insurers and providers remain fixed, but the government will have to enact massive tax hikes to pay the back-end costs — which will come out of everyone’s pockets. Either that, or the government will have to sharply ration care — which the Obama administration denies will happen.

Obviously, the White House attempt at public intimidation didn’t cause Elmendorf to flinch. Instead, his report will give ObamaCare opponents in the House, Democrats included, ammunition to demand a return to the drawing board.

So questioning the CBO findings is "intimidation" rather constructive dialogue?

alladin....back on topic......where was ANY attempt at health care reform by Bush and/or the Republican controlled Congress for eight years? If Obama just hid his head in the sand and done nothing and let the issue fester, it would have been more accurately characterized as a Bush third term

BTW, the same CBO report also refuted the Republican claim that it would result in a massive switch from employer-based plans to plans available through the proposed "exchange".

Conservatives have charged that the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance option, or "public plan," would result in many Americans losing their current, employer-based coverage. The CBO's analysis concludes that by 2016, about 9 million people who would otherwise have had employer-based coverage would not be enrolled in an employment-based plan under the House plan. However, about 12 million people who currently are not offered employer-based coverage would receive it, resulting in a net increase of 3 million Americans with employer-provided care.

CBO also said it was uncertain of the impact the bill will have on premiums, but it lists some factors that could decrease costs. For instance, the average cost of covering enrollees could drop, since Americans would presumably be healthier as a result of having greater access to care.

And finally, it ignores and did not assign a $ value to the potential savings through likely (yes, likely) tax increases on top wager earners (NOT all workers) that would either be a direct tax increase on that small percent at the top or a decrease in several types of their deductions.

I have relatively minor issues with the plans currently under consideration.

I have no issues for the need to do something and recognize that there will be a cost.

They said if I voted for McCain, there would be mass deportations of illegal immigrants, and they were right!

More evidence that President Obama was willing to say anything to get elected. More evidence that he's just another jackass politician. More evidence that the Dumbest Evil Genius in the History of Fascism got a third term:


From the New York Times:

Obama pushes aggressive immigration strategy
Despite vows, president relies heavily on predecessor’s policies on illegals
updated 4:29 a.m. CT, Tues., Aug 4, 2009
After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration’s tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.

That approach brings Mr. Obama around to the position that his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, espoused during last year’s presidential campaign, a stance Mr. Obama rejected then as too hard on Latino and immigrant communities.

A recent blitz of measures has antagonized immigrant groups and many of Mr. Obama’s Hispanic supporters, who have opened a national campaign against them, including small street protests in New York and Los Angeles last week.
NYT: Obama aggressive on immigration - The New York Times- msnbc.com

I dont recall any campaign pledge to not enforce existing laws against employers in a reasonable manner and with respect for the rights of employees.

Enforcement of current laws, particularly against employers is a good thing. Backing away from the previous policy of overly aggressive sweeps into places of employment and rounding up everyone who "looks like an illegal" is even better.
And, IMO, Obama's continued support for a pathway to citizenship for the vast majority of illegals currently in the country (no, not amnesty and certainly not for any who have committed a crime) is the only reasonable approach to the larger illegal immigration issue...along with tougher border security.
Dont get so worked up until you see specific legislation (and it probably wont be anytime soon)....then you can start ranting about "amnesty is unamerican" and a cheap ploy for Hispanic votes.

Obama Proposes Massive Shift In Online Privacy Policy (8/10/2009)
 

They told me if I voted for McCain the government would collect all kinds of personal information about Americans, and they were right!

Let me guess: This qualifies as HOPENCHANGE because President Obama does it with such intelligence and finesse?

Government Proposes Massive Shift In Online Privacy Policy (8/10/2009)

Changes Would Pose Serious Threat To Americans’ Personal Information, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union submitted comments today to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) opposing its recent proposal to reverse current federal policy and allow the use of web tracking technologies, like cookies, on federal government websites. Cookies can be used to track an Internet user’s every click and are often linked across multiple websites; they frequently identify particular people.

Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.

“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.”

The use of cookies allows a website to differentiate between users and build a database of each user’s viewing habits and the information they share with the site. Since web surfers frequently share information like their name or email address (if they’ve signed up for a service) or search request terms, the use of cookies frequently allows a user’s identity and web surfing habits to be linked. In addition, websites can allow third parties, such as advertisers, to also place cookies on a user’s computer.

“Americans rely on the information from the federal government to research politics, medical issues and legal requirements. The OMB is now asking to retain the personal and identifiable information we leave behind,” said Christopher Calabrese, Counsel for the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. “No American should have to sacrifice privacy or risk surveillance in order to access free government information. No policy change should be adopted without wide ranging debate including information on the restrictions and uses of cookies as well as impact on privacy.”
American Civil Liberties Union : Government Proposes Massive Shift In Online Privacy Policy

Obama Invokes Jesus More Often Than Bush
 

They told me if I voted for McCain, Jesus speak would become a frequently used rhetorical device, and they were right:

Obama Invokes Jesus More Often Than Bush
Politico: Obama Has Talked About His Religion In Several High-Profile Speeches
He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House - even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t like the trend with Obama: “I don’t need to hear politicians tell me how religious they are,” Lynn said. “Obama in a very overt way does what Bush tended to do in a more covert way.”

To some, the difference between the two presidents goes beyond rhetoric. David Kuo, a former official in Bush’s faith-based office who later became disillusioned with the president he served, worries that both men have exploited religious phraseology for political gain. “From a spiritual perspective, that’s a great and grave danger,” he said. “When God becomes identified with a political agenda, God gets screwed.”
Obama Invokes Jesus More Often Than Bush - CBS News

Of course, President Obama does it with so much more style and grace.

I'll take a guy who invokes religion in the context of social policy over a guy who said it was a calling to engage in an unprovoked attack and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US anytime!

There is no difference. If you use religion in social policy you will also use it in foreign policy. Religion has no place in either.

I havent yet heard Obama make references to fulfilling biblical prophecies.

"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East" and "the Biblical prophecies are about to be fulfilled" President Bush told the French President Jacques Chirac to explain why he was invading Iraq and wanted France to join a coalition of the willing..."

When/if he does, I will agree with you.

Do you think Obama's not so subtle references to Jesus might also be in response to the fact that a significant percentage (15-20%) of Republicans still believe Obama is a secret Muslim?

why is this topic still unlocked? so alladin sane and Marvelous Marv can pipe in once a week to say "GOTCHA!!!"?

Remember when the Left scoffed at the argument from George W. Bush that claimed the authorization to use military force allowed the executive branch to hold captured terrorists indefinitely, without criminal trial? Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power. Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.

Now? Change you can believe in, baby:

The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.

But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress.

The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said.

This is known as a distinction without a difference. If the White House doesn’t see the need to get Congressional authorization for continued indefinite detention, then it means that the White House believes it has that power under the Constitution, whence it derives all authority. They may not want to say it out loud, but their actions speak volumes. Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.

And this is, of course, another example of the Geraghty Axiom. The New York Times has trouble reconciling this with Obama’s statement in May on the subject:

Still, the position surprised some critics who had expected after a speech by Mr. Obama in May that he would seek legislation to put the system of indefinite detention on firmer political and legal ground. In that speech at the National Archives, Mr. Obama said that he was considering continuing indefinite detention in some limited cases but that he would not act unilaterally.

“We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded,” he said at the time. “They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.”

The explanation? All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them. Ask the Poles, who heard Obama offer rhetorical support at about the same time for a land-based missile shield, a controversial issue for which Polish politicians had risked much, only to have Obama flip-flop on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.

Will Obama acknowledge that Bush had it right all along, and that war powers give the executive branch the right to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities? Or will he attempt, as the New York Times reports, to make distinctions without differences?

I strongly disagree with his handling of these "prisoners". I think you'll find that those who opposed Bush on this also oppose Obama.....this isn't a "gotcha" moment where suddenly all the Obama supporters have changed their tune. I don't know anyone who is happy about this (or the continuation of the Patriot Act, or his handling of Afghanistan....)

Why do people still bother with this thread? Those who are keeping it going do nothing more than post a random link once in a while and then ignore all responses or discussion.

More of the same? Bush third term?

Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.
U.S. Gives New Rights To Afghan Prisoners

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a new policy making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.
Obama Tightens State Secrets Standard

Take a deep breath.

Perhaps these new policies dont far enough....but yea, baby, change for the better!

Let's face facts: By and large, the war policies of the Bush years remain in place. The only differences are so subtle as to be meaningless. Obama is nuance. Obama is doublespeak. Obama is personality. At base, the Bush war policies remain and Barack is just another politician (albeit with personality). Mr. President talks a good talk, but promised change is
A) nonexistent;
B) one of style;
C) extant somewhere in the future (washingtonpost.com).

Barack's followers repeat his pronouncements as if saying is doing. The rest of us continue to wait for substantial action. We wait and wait.

I cannot accept that this isn't a 'gotcha' moment. Every single Obama supporter here will simply 'disagree' with this policy, or the last policy, or the next policy that mimics what you decried during the last presidents administration, but you will continue to defend and support him regardless.

did you not read my post at all? I'm not supporting or defending his actions (re: War on Terruh) at all

One can support a president, any president, w/o supporting or agreeing with every policy of that president.

To suggest otherwise is to promote ignorance.

While there may be some overlap of policies, to deny that there are significant differences between Bush and Obama national security policies is also ignorant.

so the accusations directed towards those on the right about having no problem with (insert subject here) while bush was in office was meaningless drivel intended to play partisan hackery?

Personally, I think Obama is Bill Clinton 2, a person with some good reform ideas (and some bad ones) who is hostage to his own image issues and attempts to seem bipartisan. As such, he is not a true reformer in the way I would hope. If I had to grade him, I'd give him a C. In an ideal world I would have a real alternative to the democratic party, which I see as being barely better than certain more rational wings of the republican party.

However, Im sure I come off as a huge supporter. But that is only because of two things:

- He is much better than Bush (no torture, no saber rattling, more diplomatic, less religious)
- There is so much misinformation here about him that we have to spend pages upon pages of threads debunking falsehoods.

I would love to discuss all the problems I see in the Obama healthcare proposal, but instead we have to spend a lot of time debunking the death panels/ insurance for illegal aliens lies. Or the "illegal aliens will be counted in the census for the first time" lies. Or the "illegal aliens will pay in state tuition, but not US citizens." Or any of a number of myths and lies we have to spend pages discussing before we get to the issue itself.

And in this case, the lies are clear, not a matter of being in the eye of the beholder. Which is one thing that I would like to compliment you on. I would rather have more of your posts, given that you don't seem prone to engage in delirious myth making. Unfortunately, it seems that lately a lot of the political discussion around here revolves around the myths propagated by people interested in winning the battle of the news cycles, as opposed to discussing real policy issues.

obama is ten month into his presidensy somebody really has to tell him that he doesn't have to campaign any more and stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.

Change we can’t believe in
 

The venerable lefties at Britain’s New Statesman currently have a cover story on “Barack W. Bush.” Here I re-publish most of it for your pleasure. Proving once again that Barack does nothing, but he does it with style.

New Statesman - Change we can’t believe in

http://images.newstatesman.com/artic...high-res_w.jpg

Barack Obama promised a sharp break from the Bush era, yet he seems to have stepped into the shoes of his disgraced predecessor. As the anniversary of his election approaches, Mehdi Hasan investigates what went wrong

On health, he has proposed reforming the system of care that leaves 46 million Americans uninsured, but has retreated at the first sign of trouble, backing down on the "public option" - a government-run rival insurance plan - even though it may be the only method of ensuring that the private insurance industry so beloved of the Republican Party is exposed to real competition and challenge.

On climate change, Obama, unlike Bush, has recognised the need to combat global warming. Like Bush, however, he has failed to persuade Congress to take substantive action on emissions and has yet to pledge significant financial support for developing countries to help them cope with the coming climate crisis. His rhetoric may have shifted since the late 1990s when, as a state senator, he lent his support to a bill condemning the Kyoto Treaty, but it has yet to be matched by action.

One of Obama's executive orders calls for an increase in motor vehicle mileage standards, but this will only, in the words of Steven Hill of the New America Foundation, "push fuel efficiency by 2020 to a level that European and Japanese cars reached several years ago, and which even China has already achieved". Meanwhile, in May, the administration opted to retain, despite Congressional support to overturn it, a Bush-era rule that limits protection for polar bears in the Arctic - classed as an "endangered species" by the US Environmental Protection Agency - from the effects of global warming.

On financial reform, Obama has been accused of being a "socialist" and a "Marxist", intent on nationalising the US economy. The fiscal reality is, however, very different. The multibillion-dollar bank bailout, approved by Bush, has simply been continued by Obama in the same vein (his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, worked closely with the Bush administration as president of the New York Federal Reserve). Obama has tried to rein in bank bonuses and failed. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan - recipients of bailout aid - paid out billions more in bonuses in 2009 than in 2008. Meanwhile, he has continued to defend executive pay on Wall Street and set himself against European proposals to regulate remuneration or impose a cap on bonuses.

Obama came to power with a "firm pledge" not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. However, despite an off-the-cuff remark that he wanted to "spread the wealth around", his tax plans have done little to advance even modest social-democratic goals. As the treasury department's "Green Book" on revenue proposals has acknowledged, "The [Obama] administration's primary policy proposals . . . [make] permanent a number of the [Bush] tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003."

Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist at the bipartisan fiscal think tank Concord Coalition, told me that "almost all of the tax policy proposed in the Obama budget is just a continuation of the Bush tax policy". Under the "Bush-Obama tax cuts", the only income group not to benefit is the top 0.1 per cent - households with an annual income of more than $2.7m. Like Bush, Obama seems keen not to upset or disturb the rich and powerful.

On torture and Guantanamo Bay, Obama was praised for announcing, in his first week in office, that the world's most notorious prison camp would be closed within a year and that torture - including the Bush-approved technique of "waterboarding" - would be outlawed. Last month, however, with Congress refusing to agree to closure, the Pentagon's top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, said the administration was committed to shutting Guantanamo Bay by early 2010, but stopped short of confirming it will happen. According to the Columbia University law professor Scott Horton, force-feeding operations have continued at the camp, and are apparently administered with "such violence and brutality" that one prisoner has died.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the US is increasing its capacity to imprison people by expanding facilities at bases such as Bagram, where human rights groups have documented many incidents of torture and several unexplained deaths in custody. In February the new administration told a federal judge that military detainees there have no legal right to challenge their captivity. So much for ending the Bush administration's policy of indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without trial.

Obama has refused to release the shocking photographs of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as well as CIA documents describing those interrogations. He has criticised Senator Patrick Leahy's proposal for a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's national security policies, and backed immunity for senior Bush officials implicated in torture. In effect, he is covering up the torture he decried as a presidential candidate. As the neoconservative Charles Krauthammer wrote with glee in May: "Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government."

It is on foreign policy, and the "war on terror" in particular, that Obama was expected to make the biggest break with the Bush regime. Early on, he announced that he would begin winding down the war in Iraq - but only, it seems, in order to divert US troops, spies and diplomats to the war in Afghanistan and operations across the border in Pakistan. He has approved air strikes there that have killed more civilians in nine months than died in US bombings in the final year of the previous administration.

It may have been Bush who invaded Afghanistan eight years ago, but that conflict should now be seen as Obama's war. With the support of a key holdover from the Bush administration, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, Obama has sent more than 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan since May - almost doubling the US contingent.

The pressure for more troops is being kept up by Obama's new commander on the ground, Stanley McChrystal. In true Bush style, Obama suddenly replaced David McKiernan with McChrystal in May. McChrystal is an odd choice for a liberal president and critic of the Iraq war: a favourite of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has been accused of overseeing torture and human rights abuses, under Bush's presidency, at Camp Nama in Iraq, during his deployment there as a special forces commander.

If he is to chart a course independent of the war crimes, torture, chaos and general lawlessness of the Bush years, Obama has to start with the Afghan debacle. He can, in the words of the New York Times columnist Frank Rich, emulate President John F Kennedy's decision-making on Vietnam, and resist lobbying by military leaders and a hawkish media for more troops and more war, or he can continue down the Bush road of perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Obama will have to act soon to reverse the slide in his ratings, to reassert his authority at home and abroad, to keep his army of liberal Obamaniacs on board. Disenchantment and disillusionment with the candidate of change are beginning to harden. Some will argue that the left is forever prepared to scream "betrayal" at those it elects to power - be that Lyndon B Johnson, Harold Wilson, Bill Clinton or Tony Blair. But the case of Obama is different.

With his presidential campaign, the former Illinois senator raised the hopes of millions of people across the US and the world to an extent never seen in modern politics, talking repeatedly of change, reform and renewal, and suggesting he would erase the legacy of his disliked and disgraced preomgdecessor from day one. It was inevitable that even the slightest sense of continuity in policy, personnel or practice would disappoint, as it has. Obama, however, has gone further, adopting his predecessor's positions on a wide variety of issues, from the parochially domestic to the grandly geopolitical.

The lawyer Jon Eisenberg, who continues to battle the Bush-like Obama justice department in the courts, has been a registered Democrat for 30 years. He considers himself to be a "moderate leftist" and echoes the opinions of growing numbers of Americans: "I voted for Obama - even contributed a substantial amount of money to his campaign. I want my money back."

I think at this point, most would agree with that. I'm not alone in saying I'm disappointed in a lot of what Obama HASN'T done so far

I dont think most Obama voters were looking for a socialist agenda that would would please The New Statesmen. Contrary to the imbecilic rhetoric from the right, Obama is not a socialist. The far left in the US may not be thrilled with some policies either, but they dont represent the majority of Obama supporters.

I think Obama has generally met expectations....most in a positive way and a few negatives.

On the domestic side, he has proceeded to implement a progressive legislative agenda (passage of SCHIP, pay equity, credit card bill of rights,..)....rolling back of many Bush regulations and beginning to put in place new regulations in banking/financial services, energy/enviroment, and consumer protections....restoring some greater level of transparency (reversing Bush FOIA policy), although not as much as promised....an economic policy that is basic liberalism (not socialism) and by most measures, prevented a further collapse of an economy that was on the brink of collapse....and long overdue real health care reform (outcome tbd - but it wont be a European single payer system..no surprise).

On the foreign policy side, restoring diplomacy and respect for US obligations under international treaties, and a surge in positive world opinion of the US.

The greatest negatives are in the area of national security and Afghanistan...but even here, he is doing what he campaigned on...so its no surprise.

Hell, its only been 9 months.....its still in the first quarter of the game.

Aladdin ---your obsession with providing "evidence" of a Bush third term is always good for a laugh....I expect it will continue for the next three years and I look forward to the future installment of your never-ending saga....its good fiction.

Bush wouldn't have told the Human Rights Campaign he was going to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Like Healthcare, I'll believe it when it happens.
This is new, right? IIRC, Obama hadn't really touched on gay rights at all during the campaign.

I wonder if this is to minimize the backlash about the Nobel Peace Prize, taking action on some new issues instead of discussing the ones where we won't see results for a least a year, or much longer (i.e. nuclear disarmament, where we pretty much have to trust that his good intentions will make a change in the world's nuclear missiles stocks).

Frank Rich is asking about Obama's convictions or lack of convictions a point that I have been making for about two years. Like Bush or not, agree or disagree with him, one thing you can not say is that he lacked conviction. Is the media beginning to realize this and the fact that there is no substance behind the rhetoric?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/op...rich.html?_r=1

Also, this is interesting from Peggy Noonan.

Peggy Noonan: There Is No New Frontier - WSJ.com

One concern I have with Obama is his unwillingness to act in a manner consistent with being the President. He is "the man", and he needs to act like it. We don't need a commander-in-compromise.

One final note, it is a tragedy that our President still does not know what he wants to do in Afghanistan. we are at war, we have been at war, how can he not know what he wants to do? How could he have had a waking moment when he has not been thinking about our national defense, about our soldiers risking their lives - I know liberals wanted to impeach Bush, but if anything would merit a President from being removed from office it should be not taking war seriously.:shakehead:

Cite evidence that Obama is not taking Afghanistan seriously and/or doesn't know what he'd doing there.

Correction, cite something besides a right-wing blog

Nothing presented would be acceptable to you, so why play 'pretend"?

No matter what the evidence, it is apparent that Obama has not made a commitment to a new strategy - in the face of mounting evidence that the existing strategy is ineffective. My point is that a person engaged would not be as indecisive as Obama has been. I know what i would do, I bet you even know what you would do. But, let's get back to "pretend", let's pretend that you don't get this point. Let's pretend I just make stuff up. Let's pretend the NY Times is a right-wing blog. Let's pretend that the WSJ has no credibility. Let's pretend..., please let me know what you want to pretend next, I bet it is going to be good.

Your powers of projection are remarkable. You should hire yourself out as a drive-in movie theater.

You've HEARD Obama be indecisive? What has he said that is indecisive? Or have you simply concluded that because he doesn't swagger like his predecessor the chimp-man?

This ineffective strategy in Afghanistan? It's what Bush had such strong damn convictions about. I know you get all hot and sweaty about Bush's convictions. So when Obama doesn't change course.... now that strategy is ineffective and he's indecisive?

Besides, Obama RAN on a promise he'd expand our engagement in Afghanistan. Now that he's doing that, that's indecision?

The lights are on over in aceland, but there's nobody home.

No, I have NO IDEA what I'd do over there, because I'm not privy to the military intelligence and reports from the past 8 years. I'm also not qualified to formulate any such strategies, as I'm a lighting designer, not a military strategist.

You and I also don't know what Obama's plans are because, unlike his predecessor, Obama doesn't stand on the decks of aircraft carriers and announce his plans to the world. Just because you haven't "heard" his plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one

My powers of projection, as you put it, are simply my opinions. I gave the basis for my opinion. I also gave the views of a couple of noted journalists who may be starting to see things the way that I do.

I hear what he says. I remember what he said. I see what he does. I see what he doesn't do. I see how he prioritizes. Based on that I make my judgments. I make my judgments just as you would make yours.

I am not interested in taking the time to make this case for you. If you think he is decisive, good for you. On this question, isn't it subjective? I doubt we share the same standard.

We can not afford to have a "pussy" for President.

India, Russia to develop new hypersonic cruise missile

His convictions were about Iraq and using Iraq as the primary theater in the "war against terror", Afghanistan was a secondary front. Obama said Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan is the right war. If true, Obama should already know what he needs to do. Most everyone else knows you can not win a war in Afghanistan. At best, we should adopt the Biden plan.

I simply want a President who leads. I can disagree, yet follow a leader with strong convictions.

If I missed his prime time speech saying that was his plan, I owe you and Obama an apology.

Yea, that's pretty funny. Are you a professional comedian?

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

You must be joking. Are you really suggesting that you don't have an idea of what you would do? Are you that indecisive, that you need the security of "military intelligence" that has less than absolute certainty before you could form a view? Is this typical for a liberal when it comes to making decisions?

George Washington was a farmer, and then a surveyor before taking command of one of four Virginia militias.

Yea, that's funny. Are you a professional comedian?

I am not going to waste my time discussing your feelings, ace, but with regards to the apparent new threat you found with the Indo-Russian missile, you do know what 290 kilometers are, right? I mean, you do grasp what that is in miles and so on, right?

Do you want to discuss the issue and the potential implications as it relates to the topic or just make jokes?

Yes, Ace, I don't know what I would do. I don't sit here in Ohio and pretend that after watching CNN and reading a few news articles a week that I have even the slightest notion of what is really going on in Afghanistan. I also don't pretend that I, as a person with zero training or education in military, political science or Middle Eastern history, am a person who can even begin to formulate such decisions.

You can frame me as "indecisive", but I prefer "realist".

Do you often make decisions about things when you have very little information?

the potential implications for American security of a missile with a 290 kilometer range developed by India and Russia? And why we need a "tough" president because of that missile? Really?

Secondary front? What happened to "we're gonna smoke him out"? "Dead or alive"? Remember that guy names Usama? I mean this is the country who was harbouring the guy who flew planes into buildings, and well basically made dubya more than a lame duck, and that was secondary? I mean The War Against Terror (TWAT) started in Afghanistan, how can it be secondary? Iraq wasn't even on the TWAT radar until dubya decided to go get the man who tried to "kill my daddy".

Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! 180 miles

I am simply surprised by the tone of your answer. I appreciate the issues involving being in a position of not having "perfect" information or to not be the expert who develops the minute details to execute a strategy, but to suggest that you are not capable of deciding general priorities, goals, objects, and directives to those who are the experts seems to be a cop out. I am not a carpenter or an architect but I could get a house built. Your tone suggests that you can not. Perhaps I give people too much credit.

---------- Post added at 12:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

It is getting boring connecting the dots for you folks. If it ain't an issue for you and Obama - I got it. Let's just say I disagree.

Europeans Ambivalent about Obama?s Retreat on Missile Defense | The Brussels Journal

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

He became a non-issue a long, long time ago. I actually think him being alive and hiding in caves like the coward he is, is better than him dead and considered a martyr.

Mixed media was much more eloquent regarding this type of verbiage,
the last time it raised its ugly head.

I want this to be the last time I ever see you, or anyone else,stoop
to this type of garbage. Knock it the fuck off.

You do know that the missile defense that you are talking about is supposed to defend against ICBMs, and not short range missiles, right? In fact, if these hypersonic missiles are the wave of the future, then the whole missile defense system is pretty much useless.

And yes, I find it fucking ridiculous the idea that now is the time to have a "tough" president (whatever that means) because two nations are planning on cooperating on a short range missile. I mean, you do know that neither nation is within that sort of range from any significant US targets? Sure, if Russia really wanted I bet it could kill a few polar bears off the coast of Alaska with that, and they wouldn't even see it coming. But other than that, that missile would not even be in the top 25 weapons that the Russians have that could do damage to the US. And given India's allegiances, I doubt the US would have anything to fear from them selling it off.


Never mind that the US is much closer to completion of its hypersonic missile.

I have a feeling you mean he became a non issue when dubya realized finding him wasn't going to be as easy to do as it was to say. I love how the man who caused all the boo hoo in the US and flew planes into your buildings, and was/is the 'most wanted man in the world' is a non issue, jesus you Americans sure do have a short attention span.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2718799]I am simply surprised by the tone of your answer. I appreciate the issues involving being in a position of not having "perfect" information or to not be the expert who develops the minute details to execute a strategy, but to suggest that you are not capable of deciding general priorities, goals, objects, and directives to those who are the experts seems to be a cop out. I am not a carpenter or an architect but I could get a house built. Your tone suggests that you can not. Perhaps I give people too much credit.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]



Making decisions on impulse or "feelings" is why Bush fucked up Iraq. He had no clear goal going in, and no exit strategy.

And regarding your house building scenario, you could probably build a little make shift house having no knowledge of architecture or engineering, but it's gonna be a really shitty house that will probably stand for a week or two but will probably fall apart after a good rain storm. That's what happens when you do something complicated you have no idea how to do. That's why you hire someone who does know what they are doing.

so it seems that we've now devolved into a non-discussion concerning aesthetic preferences centered on the sort of details one would prefer have draped about the floating televised head of El Jeffe--whether a conservative preference for inward details which refer to the person of the Leader (which reveals something of the contempt for democracy particular to neo-fascists around the world) or another. i mean, it's not like there's anything of substance being discussed at this point. ace has shifted his monologue to this sort of question. so the only response really is that i or someone else does not share ace's aesthetic nor the conception of Power which it expresses and that's the end of that.

Woah, slow down, roachboy. I'm still trying to get my head around why having convictions for the sake of having them is perhaps the highest ideal.

I seem to keep coming to the same conclusion: it's hard to demonstrate and express one's own convictions when one's job is to manage, control, or otherwise undo the damage caused by the convictions of others.

that's an effect of the way in which conservatives prefer to stage power as a media event. it's all about inwardness dontcha know. in the same way that poverty in conservativeland is about lack of gumption or drive or any number of other inward attributes. certainly not about class position or the social distribution of opportunities or anything else. its about soul, man.
it's kinda hard not to see in this a kind of strange royalism, really: the person of the Leader is supposed to Embody the Nation and does that by Mirroring Back onto it, and presumably us, a List of Virtues. so we are as the Leader is. no matter how arbitrary that linkage might in fact be. it's all the second body of the king. you know, that old kantorowicz book. great stuff if you can find a copy and read it.

except that it's not a royalist situation and conservatives have, since reagan, had a kind of penchant for this vacant manly man Leader-images that in the world govern out of a state of emergency when the chance presents itself. so that makes this aesthetic something quite different from royalism. but i don't feel like running out this obvious line of argument again.

i don't see having convictions for their own sake as a rational approach to actually living in the world, but it's pretty obvious that ace doesn't either, given the way he moves around his frame for argument, if you want to call it that.
so this isn't about actual human beings.
it's about image, and it's about the Image of the Leader.

in my humble opinion of course.

I think it all comes down to this idea of perpetual crisis that Americans seem to value in a twisted kind of way: war isn't something you use as a tool--a means to an end--war is something you manage; war (and even lesser conflicts) is an ongoing procedural reality of a nation's perceived security and even survival.

We know how G. W. Bush marked a turning point in foreign policy with this regard, and now we have Obama handling the fallout of that. If anything, Obama has shown his convictions in that he believes it would be folly to carry on how his predecessor did. He's just not nearly as overt about it. The impact of not doing something isn't nearly as visible as doing something. And when you have Obama doing such things that can be deemed as "staying the course" a la Bush, it's perceived as business as usual--a third term. But what new Bushlike initiatives has Obama unleashed on the world?

yeah--things get all christian/heideggery from there if you want to pull on the thread a bit: war, state of emergency become originary in a sense, a kind of groundless vortex from which the People shine forth and all that. so it's a way of "accounting for" history while at the same time evacuating the actual history part (you know, things that are done by actual people in particular contexts using particular frameworks that have implications which could, in principle, be altered)...
kinda the idea that only a god creates, so nations have always been there and war becomes a blood ritual of renewal--but because this is america, its largely mediated by television, so happens in the Big Elsewhere. because everyplace is the Big Elsewhere. except the living rooms where people watch the world happen inside a rectangle.
you know.

Some profanity is o.k., just not the type that offends you?

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 PM ----------

Bush did not "fuck up" Iraq, once the dust settles let the Iraqi people address that issue. From the point of view of the "war on terror", we are still at war, and it is "our" war.

I would hire people with expertise to design and build the house I want. They would follow my vision, my direction. I would rely on their expertise for the details and to get the job done to the standards I define.

---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

I simply posted (#266) my opinion and a couple of quotes from journalists. On the question, I did not expect a response. When I post my opinion it has no more value than anyone else's, and it is clear to anyone who has read my views, knows my opinion as I expressed it, is not open to real discussion because the only way it will change is based on different behavior from Obama, not from the opinions of others. I often make it clear when I am not open minded, this is one of those occasions. So, again your post should not be directed to me, but to those who engage me and for you to ask yourself why you continue to read what I post since you have a problem with just about everything I post.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

I don't find that a challenge at all. No matter what the circumstances or conditions, you do what you think is right. Every day is a new day. Every problem is a new problem. Focus on undoing, compared to doing, in my view seems to be backward and perhaps counter-productive.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

You mis-characterize conservative view. Opportunity to exercise free choice is a cornerstone to people reaching their maximum potential. Big government often robs people of the opportunity to exercise free choice. Even when the intent may be good, often the consequences are not.

---------- Post added at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:44 PM ----------

The Canadian involvement in the Iraq war was interesting. I seemed the country took a principled stance against preemptive war but got involved after the invasion apparently to help re-build but what some called "re-building" others called an occupation and no matter how you say it- it was a war. As Canadian leaders took a principled stance against the invasion they also made note of how they supported the US military effort. Canada committed money to the effort and Canadian died in the conflict. How did Bush's reach affect Canadians and why did it happen?

Who fucked it up then? The Easter Bunny?
Umm, it was rebuilding, we sent RCMP officers there to train Iraqi police, not to occupy the country, and Bob Rae, went in the summer of 2005 to help compose the new Iraqi constitution, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley served as head of the international team observing the Iraqi legislative election of January 2005, oh yeah and we gave approximately $300 million towards the rebuilding effort, so yeah, no occupation there.
Maybe read this, I know it's Wiki, but it may give you some insight Canada and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Certainly not the PM at the time, if he supported the military effort, I reckon he would have supported the invasion, then again I'm not Mr. Chretien so I can't say what he was thinking. Maybe Harper when he was opposition leader, but look how well that support went once he was PM, he figured out fuck that, the people will butcher me if I sent soldiers to that clusterfuck.

We live in a world of shifting realities. A pussy to Peter may be a chimp to Paul. Don't git yer panties in a wad.

How many civilian deaths per year were there before the invasion vs. during and since? How was infrastructure in Iraq before the invasion vs. during and in the following 6 years? What was the state of radical (violent) islamic influence in Iraq before the invasion vs. after? By what measure do you find that Iraq was equal before and after the invasion?

I have eschewed underwear since 1982

Well, I think the challenge is in being obvious about your convictions in the type of circumstances such as those Obama faces. It's not like he walked into your average presidential office.

Maybe Obama's convictions aren't obvious to you; to say he has no convictions is a serious charge.

And sometimes you must undo, where the mess is so terrible that doing something else would only make matters worse. If you're on the wrong path, you don't keep trotting down it; sometimes you have to backtrack.

silent_jay more or less summed it up. But I will add that any support offered by Canadians on the level of government or elsewhere was generally applied more so to the "War on Terror" than it was in the mess (i.e. war operations) in Iraq.

Canadians tend to have a knack for wanting to fix things and make them better, and so that's what we do. Afghanistan is a bit of a different story, but it's a good place to look to see the difference between how we view one situation versus the other.

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Bush did not "fuck up" Iraq, once the dust settles let the Iraqi people address that issue. From the point of view of the "war on terror", we are still at war, and it is "our" war.



Bush declared mission accomplished on may 2, 2003. We are still at war in Iraq. What do you think he was referring to when he declared victory? Having gone in under false pretenses, having no clear mission or goal and no exit strategy in what way would you put this in the "win" column for the U.S.?

You dont think creating over 4 million refugees/displaced persons is a "fuck up"?
Think about it in US terms. It would comparable to nearly every resident of California, or Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan combined, displaced from their homes and many forced to leave the country for their own safety.

Iraq was not Bush's war it is our war. Congress authorized the war and now it has spanned two different administrations and we are still there.

I get confused sometimes it is "rebuiling" or "nation building" and sometimes it is an "occupation" or an "illegal occupation" - like I said no matter how you say it, it was a war zone.

Why did they send soldiers to Afghanistan. I read a report that Canadian soldiers were disproportionately killed in combat. What was the difference? Why did Canada even get involved?

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

I am not going to make a judgment on the question of if Iraq was F'd up by the US invasion or "occupation". I never lived their, it is not my country and I have no first hand basis to compare before and after. All I will say is that in some cases sacrifice or taking steps back may lead to long-term gain and may be well worth the price. It like when the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, who am I to say it F'd up Japan or not from the perspective of the Japanese people. From my point of view, it helped end the war - and that was worthwhile even-though there was loss of life and massive destruction. I think the alternatives would have been more costly.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

We can not say Obama walked into a surprise. Everyone knew the circumstances and he ran saying how he would lead, his priorities, his goals, and how he believed the previous administration failed. Since he has not followed through.

I see a pattern. We all occasionally fall short of what we want to be, but there is a theoretical point subjective to each of us where we make a determination on the question based on observed actions. On this question, I reach that point sooner than some. But at some point, I think even you would come to the same conclusion. This was my observation leading to my post #266. I think more people are coming to the conclusion I reached awhile ago.

And sometimes you must undo, where the mess is so terrible that doing something else would only make matters worse. If you're on the wrong path, you don't keep trotting down it; sometimes you have to backtrack.

I understand taking a principled stance against preemptive war. what I am not clear on is a commitment of treasury and life to a war zone where a principled stance against a preemptive occurred. And my question has to do with how Bush influence Canada in that regard, if he did? And if so, why did it happen? What we have is American liberals saying Bush more or less fooled them into supporting a preemptive war, and now it appears Canadian's may have avoided initially being foold but later fell into Bush's trap. Given, Bush's alleged lack of intellect and diplomatic skills, it seems incredible that he could do all of that.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

There are two issues here.

First, if it is a F-up, I see it as a US issue not a Bush issue.
Second, I say let the Iraqi people write the history on the impact the war had on their country. I would not want a war fought in my backyard, but before I concluded it was a F-up, I would want to see how everything ended up.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

After sleeping on this, I apologize. I should not have expressed my thought in that manner.

Sorry mate, that was/is Bush's war, it hasn't spanned two different administrations, it went through most of Bush's, and well if you think you can pull troops out of a country in 10 months, whicch is all it has lasted in Obama's term.
War zone or not, you do know there are different roles to play in a war zone don't you? Combat, logistical, and yes even construction, which is often done by civilians, so saying occupation is just a cop out, or you really have no idea what diffetrent roles there are in a war zone.
Wait, wait, are you trying to say that because the Canadian government sent troops to Afghanistan, that equals supporting the invasion of Iraq? If you can tie the two together, you'll be able to do something Bush never could, so I'd like to see your reasoning for that one.


I don't know, I haven't read said report, care to share if with the rest of the class? What's the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? If you don't know this by now, there is no use explaining it, it's the proverbial dead horse.

Yes, you can withdraw the troops in 10 months or less. Or, you can say the war was wrong and put plans in place to remove the troops by a date certain. But, back to the point, Congress authorized the use of military force, they funded the war, Bush was re-elected by the American people - remember "stay the course". So to sum it all up:

Congress had the opportunity to say no, not yes.
Congress had the opportunity to give a conditional yes, not a "blank check".
Congress had the opportunity to re-visit the yes and make it no.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions.
Congress had the opportunity to not fund the invasion.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions for the continued funding.
Congress had the opportunity to impeach.
The American people had an opportunity to not re-elect Bush.
The American people had multiple opportunities to vote for people who would end the war.
The new administration had an opportunity to end the war or set a time frame for its end.
A Congress with a super majority and a President of the same party had an opportunity to do whatever they want.

And, you call it Bush's war???????????

I understand that, what I don't understand is why do it? Why take the risk?

It goes to a broader issue raised in an earlier post regarding the inferred US predisposition to war. I assume people follow the flow of the posts. Some here seem to assume a comment taken out of context illustrates ignorance. If you ever have a question about what I am trying to say, just ask. I know that I have a problem communicating with people because I often have multiple trains of thought running at the same time.

This train:

If in principle a nation takes a stance that war is not a solution, preemptive or not, why engage in war? What was the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k., (the Afghan people were not involved in 9/11, nor was 9/11 an attack against Canada)? Then what is the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k. but making preemptive war in Iran wrong? If preemptive war in Iran is wrong, what is the "thing" that make any involvement in that war o.k.? If preemptive war is wrong why not take issue with the nation involved in initiating the preemptive war? Why pretend to be neutral? given these questions and others, what influence did Bush have and why?



True, but not for the reasons you state.

sophistries ace. all of that. look it up.

I complement you. On most people what you do is probably pretty effective. Just so that you know, we both know what your approach is - I call you on it. We both know the true sophistry is in the argument that it is "Bush's war". In our form of government, and in fact any form of government, no one man can be solely responsible for war. If you want to make a case to defend that position, give us your best shot. Or, simply respond with a short one liner that adds no value.

uh ace. you could i suppose refer to iraq as the project for a new american century's war. but it was in fact the bush administration that fabricated the case for it, that launched it, that pursued the "wolfowitz strategy" on and on and on.

as a political label, calling iraq bush's war is pretty accurate. i read your "arguments" above and kind nothing of interest in them, so i'm leaving it at that.