Obama

[Happy Face 29]

President Obama unveiled his plan to reign in the national debt on Wednesday, proposing spending cuts and tax increases while showing he's no Manchurian candidate for the right. Obama's paean to Democratic values came just as the liberal commentariat was throwing up its hands and declaring the president a meek enabler of the Republican agenda. Obama's plan would cut the federal budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, in contrast to the Republicans' proposed $4.4 trillion over 10 years. But the president would use different methods from the GOP deficit plan, preserving Medicare and Medicaid while upping taxes on rich Americans, reports the New York Times. Obama called the Republican proposal to lower taxes on the wealthy and dismantle Medicare "deeply pessimistic" and harmful to the elderly and poor. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 30 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I am president," he said in the only line that drew applause from an audience at George Washington University. The president has appointed VP Joe Biden to lead the tough budget negotiations with Congress looming in the coming weeks. Biden got pumped up for the battle by sleeping through a portion of the president's speech. Meanwhile, Republicans expressed disappointment that the president didn't cave to their demands. "I was naively optimistic that the president was going to give us a sincere olive branch," said Republican budget guru Paul Ryan (R-WI).

 

New York Times

To be sure, the President’s plan represents an important step forward in the debate. But it should be recognized that this plan is a rather conservative one, significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan. While we worry about some particular elements of the President’s plan, we worry much more that the deficit-reduction process that’s now starting could produce an outcome that is well to the right of the already centrist-to-moderately -conservative Obama proposal, by reducing its relatively modest revenue increases and cutting more deeply into effective programs that are vital to millions of Americans. # # #

 

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3469

[Happy Face 29]

The Washington Post did a very long winded story over the weekend around the real reasons Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Most of the blame according to them lies with Rahm and Obama...not Congress.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guanta...ry.html?hpid=z1

 

The one theme that repeatedly emerged in interviews was a belief that the White House never pressed hard enough on what was supposed to be a signature goal. Although the closure of Guantanamo Bay was announced in an executive order, which Obama signed on Jan. 22, 2009, the fanfare never translated into the kind of political push necessary to sustain the policy.

 

The main points are highlighted here...

 

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/...e-big-bad-wolf/

 

The outrage from a single congressman was enough to spook the Obama administration, which quickly shelved its Uighur plan. Craig as well as a current senior official and a former senior official said they don’t know who stopped the transfer.

 

“They did not reconvene the principals,” Craig said. “They did not have a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss this and change the direction. It just happened: ‘We’re not doing it.’ ”

 

In fact, the transfer was stopped by Emanuel, according to officials familiar with Emanuel’s thinking.

 

and

 

"In late April, Obama heard some jarring news during a Situation Room meeting with the interagency task force reviewing the case of every detainee at Guantanamo.

 

The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.

 

Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.

 

White House officials were in such disbelief that they asked Justice Department participants to write up a memo explaining exactly why they couldn’t bring more of the men to trial. In many cases, the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence."

 

Now, you’d think a lawyer would conclude from the fact that there was no “court-worthy evidence” on the majority of men held in Gitmo that something was wrong with the selection process of those in Gitmo. You’d think that would provide an opportunity to pivot and level with the American people about what really went into the collection of a bunch of men turned over for bounty. You’d think that the President would have dealt with the underlying issue: that we had invented excuses to hold many of the men in Gitmo, or tortured excuses out of the others.

 

But instead, Obama decided to champion indefinite detention.

 

Indefinite detention of these men against whom we didn’t–and in most cases, still don’t–have court-worthy evidence.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Happy Face

[Rob W 0]

Firstly there may be evidence but they don't want to show how they got it - in this country MI5 regularly will not provide "interception" evidence because then tehy will admit what they do and might be asked for it in every case

 

Secondly there is the political dimension - the Great American Public won't stand for these guys being let out - better to perpetuate the injustice and start saving for the public apology and cash payment in 25 years (as with the Nissei)

[Happy Face 29]

Firstly there may be evidence but they don't want to show how they got it - in this country MI5 regularly will not provide "interception" evidence because then tehy will admit what they do and might be asked for it in every case

 

Secondly there is the political dimension - the Great American Public won't stand for these guys being let out - better to perpetuate the injustice and start saving for the public apology and cash payment in 25 years (as with the Nissei)

 

Firstly - yeah, the article I quoted says as much..."the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence."

 

Secondly - Nar, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9012103652.html

 

Public opinion is split on many issues where the government is supposed to lead...Civil rights, abortion, state sponsored healthcare.

[Park Life 71]

The Washington Post did a very long winded story over the weekend around the real reasons Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Most of the blame according to them lies with Rahm and Obama...not Congress.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guanta...ry.html?hpid=z1

 

The one theme that repeatedly emerged in interviews was a belief that the White House never pressed hard enough on what was supposed to be a signature goal. Although the closure of Guantanamo Bay was announced in an executive order, which Obama signed on Jan. 22, 2009, the fanfare never translated into the kind of political push necessary to sustain the policy.

 

The main points are highlighted here...

 

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/...e-big-bad-wolf/

 

The outrage from a single congressman was enough to spook the Obama administration, which quickly shelved its Uighur plan. Craig as well as a current senior official and a former senior official said they don’t know who stopped the transfer.

 

“They did not reconvene the principals,” Craig said. “They did not have a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss this and change the direction. It just happened: ‘We’re not doing it.’ ”

 

In fact, the transfer was stopped by Emanuel, according to officials familiar with Emanuel’s thinking.

 

and

 

"In late April, Obama heard some jarring news during a Situation Room meeting with the interagency task force reviewing the case of every detainee at Guantanamo.

 

The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.

 

Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.

 

White House officials were in such disbelief that they asked Justice Department participants to write up a memo explaining exactly why they couldn’t bring more of the men to trial. In many cases, the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence."

 

Now, you’d think a lawyer would conclude from the fact that there was no “court-worthy evidence” on the majority of men held in Gitmo that something was wrong with the selection process of those in Gitmo. You’d think that would provide an opportunity to pivot and level with the American people about what really went into the collection of a bunch of men turned over for bounty. You’d think that the President would have dealt with the underlying issue: that we had invented excuses to hold many of the men in Gitmo, or tortured excuses out of the others.

 

But instead, Obama decided to champion indefinite detention.

 

Indefinite detention of these men against whom we didn’t–and in most cases, still don’t–have court-worthy evidence.

 

Rahm is basically Mr Israel in Washingtun.

[Happy Face 29]

The Washington Post did a very long winded story over the weekend around the real reasons Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Most of the blame according to them lies with Rahm and Obama...not Congress.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guanta...ry.html?hpid=z1

 

The one theme that repeatedly emerged in interviews was a belief that the White House never pressed hard enough on what was supposed to be a signature goal. Although the closure of Guantanamo Bay was announced in an executive order, which Obama signed on Jan. 22, 2009, the fanfare never translated into the kind of political push necessary to sustain the policy.

 

The main points are highlighted here...

 

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/...e-big-bad-wolf/

 

The outrage from a single congressman was enough to spook the Obama administration, which quickly shelved its Uighur plan. Craig as well as a current senior official and a former senior official said they don’t know who stopped the transfer.

 

“They did not reconvene the principals,” Craig said. “They did not have a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss this and change the direction. It just happened: ‘We’re not doing it.’ ”

 

In fact, the transfer was stopped by Emanuel, according to officials familiar with Emanuel’s thinking.

 

and

 

"In late April, Obama heard some jarring news during a Situation Room meeting with the interagency task force reviewing the case of every detainee at Guantanamo.

 

The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.

 

Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.

 

White House officials were in such disbelief that they asked Justice Department participants to write up a memo explaining exactly why they couldn’t bring more of the men to trial. In many cases, the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence."

 

Now, you’d think a lawyer would conclude from the fact that there was no “court-worthy evidence” on the majority of men held in Gitmo that something was wrong with the selection process of those in Gitmo. You’d think that would provide an opportunity to pivot and level with the American people about what really went into the collection of a bunch of men turned over for bounty. You’d think that the President would have dealt with the underlying issue: that we had invented excuses to hold many of the men in Gitmo, or tortured excuses out of the others.

 

But instead, Obama decided to champion indefinite detention.

 

Indefinite detention of these men against whom we didn’t–and in most cases, still don’t–have court-worthy evidence.

 

Rahm is basically Mr Israel in Washingtun.

 

Cheyney spent enormous energy trying to get Washington to trade with Iraq/Iran without all the shite of the last few decades. He basically has American interests at heart and doesn't give a fuck how he satisfies those interests. Unfortunately this would have strengthened the arab world, so after failing to get through the Israel lobby in Washington he changed tack and went for the "bomb the shit out of them and take the oil" approach because it was easier that way. Rahm seemingly has Israeli interests at heart first and foremost and won't even fight for American interests in the first instance.

[Park Life 71]

Dual nationality? Wouldn't surprise me.

[Rob W 0]

Firstly there may be evidence but they don't want to show how they got it - in this country MI5 regularly will not provide "interception" evidence because then tehy will admit what they do and might be asked for it in every case

 

Secondly there is the political dimension - the Great American Public won't stand for these guys being let out - better to perpetuate the injustice and start saving for the public apology and cash payment in 25 years (as with the Nissei)

 

Firstly - yeah, the article I quoted says as much..."the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence."

 

Secondly - Nar, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9012103652.html

 

Public opinion is split on many issues where the government is supposed to lead...Civil rights, abortion, state sponsored healthcare.

 

 

Hmm the Washington Post is a pretty minority opinion thesedays

[Park Life 71]

I wonder if as US debt keeps skyrocketing the Govt will make moves to take over the 401k pensions schemes of working populus...

[Happy Face 29]

Blistering take-down of Obama apologists that argue he's better than the alternative...

 

 

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/conte...n-as-hero-.html

 

An extract...

 

this is not simply a case of lesser evilism in a system where all the alternatives are grim – i.e., “Well, Göring is a monster but he’s probably marginally better than Hitler; let’s support a bloody coup to install him as Führer”. No; Digby and many other progressives whose writings show they are perfectly aware of the atrocities that Obama has committed and the evil policies he embraces – such as the unrestricted license to kill – still display an active affection and celebratory support for him. To them, even though he has killed these people and claimed these awful powers, he is still one cool guy.

 

Witness their delight at Obama’s comedy routine at the Correspondent’s Dinner last week, when he poked fun at the pathetic Donald Trump, garnering big yocks from the Beltway elite – even as NATO missiles were killing three young grandchildren of Moamar Gadafy: more child sacrifices offered up on the altar of our modern Molochs. They didn't even notice.

 

Oh, they often shake their heads sadly or waggle their fingers sternly at some action or policy of Obama’s. They often can’t understand why he does these things – cut taxes for the rich, bail out the bankers, torture Bradley Manning, form commissions to gut Social Security, escalate and prolong the Terror War, kill hundreds of people with drone missiles, etc., etc. But nothing douses their fundamental (fundamentalist?) fervor to keep him in power and to scorn those who oppose him. Nothing keeps them from seeing themselves as his true and faithful "base," still waiting for him to return to them, despite his many betrayals. (Subconscious betrayals, no doubt.)

 

People can scream about Godwin's law, but Godwin himself has lamented it's incorrect use. Sometimes a Nazi comparison IS legitimate. On healthcare, probably not, on invading multiple countries, very much so.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

People can scream about Godwin's law, but Godwin himself has lamented it's incorrect use. Sometimes a Nazi comparison IS legitimate. On healthcare, probably not, on invading multiple countries, very much so.

 

[Park Life 71]

Blistering take-down of Obama apologists that argue he's better than the alternative...

 

 

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/conte...n-as-hero-.html

 

An extract...

 

this is not simply a case of lesser evilism in a system where all the alternatives are grim – i.e., “Well, Göring is a monster but he’s probably marginally better than Hitler; let’s support a bloody coup to install him as Führer”. No; Digby and many other progressives whose writings show they are perfectly aware of the atrocities that Obama has committed and the evil policies he embraces – such as the unrestricted license to kill – still display an active affection and celebratory support for him. To them, even though he has killed these people and claimed these awful powers, he is still one cool guy.

 

Witness their delight at Obama’s comedy routine at the Correspondent’s Dinner last week, when he poked fun at the pathetic Donald Trump, garnering big yocks from the Beltway elite – even as NATO missiles were killing three young grandchildren of Moamar Gadafy: more child sacrifices offered up on the altar of our modern Molochs. They didn't even notice.

 

Oh, they often shake their heads sadly or waggle their fingers sternly at some action or policy of Obama’s. They often can’t understand why he does these things – cut taxes for the rich, bail out the bankers, torture Bradley Manning, form commissions to gut Social Security, escalate and prolong the Terror War, kill hundreds of people with drone missiles, etc., etc. But nothing douses their fundamental (fundamentalist?) fervor to keep him in power and to scorn those who oppose him. Nothing keeps them from seeing themselves as his true and faithful "base," still waiting for him to return to them, despite his many betrayals. (Subconscious betrayals, no doubt.)

 

People can scream about Godwin's law, but Godwin himself has lamented it's incorrect use. Sometimes a Nazi comparison IS legitimate. On healthcare, probably not, on invading multiple countries, very much so.

 

Wolf in a Marks and Spencer jumper.

[Gemmill 46024]

Has this been posted? Fancy having the piss ripped out of you by the President.

[The Fish 10963]

Love how he crucifies Fox "News" too.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Good delivery

[Barney 0]

How does that taste, Trump?

 

Ruined.

[Rob W 0]

aye - if he was mad enough to run it would be repalyed over and over

[Park Life 71]

Obama lying like hell at the start of this...

 

 

Edited May 17, 2011 by Park Life

[WordPlay 0]

Mr Long Legged Mack Daddy

[Park Life 71]

He'll be pillaging pensions. Nowhere else to go if ceiling isn't lifted.

[Happy Face 29]

"we will not tolerate aggression across borders."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682

 

Edited May 19, 2011 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

"we will not tolerate aggression across borders."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682

 

 

What's going on?

[Happy Face 29]

"we will not tolerate aggression across borders."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682

 

 

What's going on?

 

 

He's just done a speech on how nice it is to see the middle east democratic movement.

[Park Life 71]

"we will not tolerate aggression across borders."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682

 

 

What's going on?

 

 

He's just done a speech on how nice it is to see the middle east democratic movement.

 

What a tinker.

[Happy Face 29]

"we will not tolerate aggression across borders."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682

 

 

What's going on?

 

 

He's just done a speech on how nice it is to see the middle east democratic movement.

 

What a tinker.