aceventura3

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...

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

Aladdin Sane

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

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Baraka_Guru

(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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

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.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

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 perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Paq

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?

__________________
Live.

Chris

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

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.

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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?

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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?

Aladdin Sane

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.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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?

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Aladdin Sane

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

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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

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

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

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 …

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I am here to serve.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Ourcrazymodern?

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

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Aladdin Sane

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

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

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."

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.