Obama Is The Third Bush Term, Part II – Guantanamo

The third George W. Bush term – starring Barack W. Obama – will be just as exciting, more corrupt, inept, dangerous and debilitating.

Our view of Obama, as a very bad Third Bush Term, is not welcome in many quarters. “Now is the time for unity and hope” we are told. “Shush, things will be better if only you wait in silence” they demand. We recall that at the time we lost plenty of friends because we denounced George W. as he stole the 2000 election. Many did not want to hear about stolen elections in the United States. The advice then as now was to deactivate our critical faculties in favor of “unity”.

We lost even more friends in 2001 when we placed the blame for 9-11 squarely on the shoulders of George W. for the intelligence failures that led to the rubble which used to be the World Trade Center. “Silence, now is the time for unity” we were told once again. But our critical faculties led us to recognize and speak the truth.

So now we will lose more friends as we use the same critical faculties to describe the unqualified and inexperienced Barack Obama that we employed to describe George W. Bush. PINOs and other Dimocrats who did not lack sharp analytical skills when it came to lambasting George W. and the Republicans are now bereft of senses. Hypocrites. PINOs and other Dimocrats will tolerate from Obama what they would not tolerate from a Republican, especially a Bush.

Back in 2000 and especially after September 2001 George W. Bush was praised by Big Media as a “uniter”. George W. Bush had sky high approval according to polls. Now, Americans have awakened to the disaster which George W. Bush was and is. Bush was not to be criticized. For the sake of “unity” silence was requested and unfortunately received. Silence in the face of disaster is not to be applauded.

Hope should not be used to disguise, distort or hide the truth.

* * *

Day-by-day, the recognition filters through to some that the Obama story is not what is being told and that things are not as rosy for Obama as his assistants in Big Media pretend and propagandize. Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times even dares to posit a one-term Obama, a failed Obama forced to retreat to corrupt Chicago even as he abandons his campaign promises:

White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.

If his stimulus plan “doesn’t work out, he may very well be a one-term president,” said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama’s campaign. “It’s hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy’s in the exact same position four years from now.”

A lot of the things he said on the campaign trail you can now dispense with,” said correspondent Peter Baker. “For the moment he has to focus on the economy.”

The panel discussion which prompted the one-term assessment was in a sense Big Media cooperation with the Obama campaign attempts to “manage expectations”.

The reporters for the New York Times are preparing Americans for the Obama failures and lies and protecting Obama by saying (1) that the broken Obama promises will be abandoned “for now”; and that (2) the measure of an Obama failure is “if the economy’s in the exact same position for years from now”. We suspect “for now” will be defined in Obama’s favor and that even a mild economic uptick will negate “exact same position” as a demerit counted against Obama by Big Media.

Baker suggested Obama would tackle smaller-scale issues related to his major agenda items as a kind of political “down payment” on his promises, for now would retreat from even some of his firmest pledges.

“You’re not going to see universal health care, I don’t think, this year,” Baker said. “You’re not going to see a cap on carbon emissions, as he has promised, probably, this year.”

As for the Obama strategy, a New York Times reporter notes about Obama “His whole economic package is about giving things to people.”

How much in the tank for Obama is Big Media as represented by the New York Times? Here is the New York Times lowering expectations for Obama by (surprise!) blatently lowering expectations:

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who has covered the Bush administration for the Times, suggested Obama would use his Inauguration, which takes place in nine days, as an opportunity to ask for patience from an uneasy public.

One of Obama’s principal political challenges, Stolberg said, is: “How will he try to lower expectations?”

The myth of Obama is kept safe at the New York Times. Even though there are videos of Obama discussing running for president and discussions of running for president starting in 2004 Zeleny of the Times pretends that the Obama campaign was a last minute decision.

“More than any other politician, he sort of grew, month by month, as you saw him,” Zeleny said, adding that when he was sworn into the Senate just four years ago, Obama hadn’t given much thought to running for president.

“At the time, the plan, the Obama plan, was that he would run for governor of Illinois after one term in the Senate, or he might,” Zeleny said. “He had no idea what it was going to be like to run for president.”

The Times’ reporters do accidentally fall into a bit of truth. While they do not specifically say, as we do, that Obama is the Third Bush Term they do realize that Obama will carry out George W. Bush policies:

Outgoing White House officials who recognize the current president’s unpopularity are hoping the president-elect will be able to carry out parts of the Bush team’s policy vision, particularly with respect to Iraq, that are currently incomplete.

“If Obama succeeds, it’s like Eisenhower after Truman,” Baker said, pointing out that Eisenhower perpetuated many of Truman’s anticommunist policies, winning over a public that had been resistant to his predecessor’s ideas.

“They think that Obama is not going to change things as dramatically” as people think, he said.

* * *

The New York Times and the Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs will cover for Obama, we won’t. We will trumpet loudly when Obama breaks a promise. The Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs won’t discuss Obama’s Social Security Treachery and they made excuses for Obama’s FISA treachery. On Sunday Obama started the ol’ Razzle Dazzle on Guantanamo.

Obama on Sunday “lowered expectations” on the close of Guantanamo prisons. Previously Obama had said, with flowery words, he would shut down Guantanamo prisons. That Obama promise is no longer, as Richard Nixon would say, “operative”.

The latest Obama flim-flam took place on ABC’s This Week. The campaign promise to close Guantanamo within 100 days is now a broken promise. Obama says he has just now discovered that closing Guantanamo is “complex”. The truth of course is that nothing has changed on the issue of Guantanamo, there are no new facts on Guantanamo. Obama can’t be trusted:

On Guantanamo — which he repeatedly promised to shutter during the campaign — Obama, in an interview on Sunday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” reiterated his intent to do just that but also sounded a pragmatic note.

That’s a challenge,” the president-elect said about the prospect of closing down to the detainee facility within the first 100 days of taking office. “I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.

Obama is simply lying, again. The Guantanamo prison and the issues surrounding it have been well known and yes, complex. But there is nothing new on the Guantanamo issue. What is new is Obama is flim-flamming again and Big Media is protecting Obama, again.

When Obama made his campaign promise to close Guantanamo the situation was just as complex as it is today. If anything the actual issue itself should be less complex because there has been so much more time to think about Guantanamo. Obama is simply hedging his bets and flim-flamming Americans with flowery words. Obama can’t be trusted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you’re still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So not necessarily first 100 days.

OBAMA: That’s a challenge. I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.

Flowery words like habeas corpus, “basic principles”, and “rule of law” flow from Obama’s mouth – a flim-flam man’s technique to hide the basic fact of a broken promise and a possible new corruption of our court system (see Greenwald, below).

* * *

So what is the cause of the latest outbreak declaration of BOBP (Barack Obama Broken Promise)?

First of all, even Barack Obama’s closest political shills allies are running away from a Guantanamo closing.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) added her voice yesterday to a predictable chorus of Kansas politicians campaigning to prohibit any detainees from Guantanamo ending up at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth when President-elect Obama closes the prison.

More importantly, Obama will not be able to vote “present” on Guantanamo because the Supreme Court demands attention. In a little noted New York Times article the Obama flim-flam of yesterday on ABC becomes easier to decipher (and please note that February 20 will be a time that the Congress will be engaged in passing a “Stimulus” bill to distract from the Supreme Court cases):

Just a month after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he must tell the Supreme Court where he stands on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration — that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

The new administration’s brief, which is due Feb. 20, has the potential to hearten or infuriate Mr. Obama’s supporters, many of whom are looking to him for stark disavowals of the Bush administration’s legal positions on the detention and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants held at Navy facilities on the American mainland or at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama made broad statements criticizing the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power. But now he must address a specific case, that of Ali al-Marri, a Qatari student who was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. The Bush administration says Mr. Marri is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, and it is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He is the only person currently held as an enemy combatant on the mainland, but the legal principles established in his case are likely to affect the roughly 250 prisoners at Guantánamo.

The issues before the Supreme Court have been coursing through the courts since December 2001. “Constitutional expert” Obama surely cannot be surprised by these issues he now declares to be “complex”. Obama the flim-flam man made promises during the campaign he will now proceed to break.

Many legal experts say that all of the new administration’s options in Mr. Marri’s case are perilous. Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic.

Trying him on criminal charges could be difficult, too, in part because some of the evidence against him may have been obtained through torture and would not be admissible.

And staying the course in the Marri case would outrage civil libertarians.

“If they adopt the Bush administration position, or some version of it,” said Brandt Goldstein, a professor at New York Law School, “it is going to be a moment of profound disappointment for everyone in the legal community and Americans generally who believe that the Bush administration has tried to turn the presidency into a monarchy.”

The case, Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, No. 08-368, was addressed by Obama during the campaign:

A year ago, Mr. Obama answered a detailed questionnaire concerning his views on presidential power from The Boston Globe. “I reject the Bush administration’s claim,” Mr. Obama said, “that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”

That sounds vigorous and categorical. But applying this view to Mr. Marri’s case is not that simple. Although he was in the United States legally, he was not an American citizen. In addition, a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force arguably gave the president the authority that Mr. Obama has said is not conferred by the Constitution alone.

Still, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who has generally supported the Bush administration’s approach to fighting terrorism, said Mr. Obama’s hands are tied. He cannot, Mr. McCarthy said, continue to maintain that Mr. Marri’s detention is lawful.

“I don’t think politically for him that’s a viable option,” Mr. McCarthy said. “Legally, it’s perfectly viable.”

Hopium addicts will empty their syringes in February as reality becomes too horrible to bear.

One possibility is to deport Mr. Marri to Qatar, but Bush administration officials say that would be an enormous mistake.

Al-Marri must be detained,” Jeffrey N. Rapp, a defense intelligence official wrote in a court filing in 2004, “to prevent him from aiding Al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States, its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens.”

Mr. Marri’s lawyers would be delighted to see their client freed, but they are also eager to vacate a decision of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., in July upholding the president’s authority to detain Mr. Marri subject to a court hearing on whether he was properly designated an enemy combatant.

Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Mr. Marri, emphasized both points.

“If, as President-elect Obama has pledged, the rule of law in America is to be restored,” Mr. Hafetz said, “then Mr. al-Marri’s military detention must cease and the lower court’s ruling upholding the president’s power to order the military to seize legal residents and American citizens from their homes and imprison them without charge, must be overturned.”

Another alternative for the new administration is to prosecute Mr. Marri as a criminal. But it is not clear that there is admissible evidence against him.

When Mr. Marri was arrested, in December 2001, he was charged with garden-variety crimes: credit card fraud and, later, lying to federal agents and financial institutions, and identity theft. But when Mr. Bush moved Mr. Marri from the criminal system to military detention in June 2003, the government agreed to dismiss those charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled.

After reading the above, it is easier to see through Obama’s talk on ABC. Glen Greenwald believes Obama on ABC was signaling a new flim-flam:

Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we’re unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is “tainted” as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system — most likely a so-called new “national security court” — that “relaxes” due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we’re unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.

If Greenwald is right that Obama is preparing to establish a new flim-flam separate court system for “security” or whether Obama is referring to earlier charges dropped “with prejudice” one thing is clear – get ready for a whopper of an Obama flim-flam that will make his FISA flip-flop-flim-flam seem tame by comparison.

It is likely that Greenwald is correct, that Obama is planning a new flim-flam court system. The New York Times article provides the evidence:

The more serious accusations recounted in Mr. Rapp’s statement are attributed partly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the chief architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and who was captured in early 2003. The Central Intelligence Agency has said Mr. Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding, and information obtained from him may therefore not be admissible in court. Mr. McCarthy, the former prosecutor, said he hoped the new administration is sifting through its options with exceptional care.

“If they can’t try him in federal court and assuming he poses the severe risk the Bush administration suggests he poses, is there some room to detain him under the immigration system?” Mr. McCarthy asked. “If there is not a Plan B, we have a disaster that transcends al-Marri,” he added, referring to the larger question of what to do with the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

There is also a second case which Obama will not be able to vote “present” on. This second case was brought by four former prisoners at Guantánamo Bay who say they were tortured. At first this appeals court review, ordered by the Supreme Court, was to be over by the Friday before inauguration day. Now the case on whether provisions of the Bill of Rights and a federal law guaranteeing religious freedom apply to detainees held at Guantánamo Bay will be heard on the Monday after inauguration day, January 26. Will Obama try to vote “present” and allow the Bush administration briefs to be presented in this case?

It is becoming harder and harder for Obama to vote “present” on important issues. It is becoming harder and harder for Obama to continue to flim-flam his way through life.

But on Quantanamo and the issues presented, Obama is still trying to flim-flam with assistance from Big Media.

On Guantanamo, Obama is the Third Bush Term.

Share

103 thoughts on “Obama Is The Third Bush Term, Part II – Guantanamo

  1. Nice job, admin. Excellent research.

    My piece from the last thread is reposted here, as it came just before admin put up “NEW ARTICLE UP”.

    BTW, admin, is the site sluggish today, or technical problems? I’ve had some difficulty posting, and had to refresh many times today.

    BOTS: START REJOICING; YOUR MESSIAH CONTINUES TO BREAK HIS PROMISES TO YOU. BUT DON’T WORRY, YOU STILL HAVE THE INAUGURATION TO FEEL ALL EXCITED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, “MAKING HISTORY”.

    (my comments preceded by $$$ sprinkled throughout)

    Obama Signals His Reluctance to Look Into Bush Policies
    By DAVID JOHNSTON and CHARLIE SAVAGE
    Published: January 11, 2009

    WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama signaled in an interview broadcast Sunday that he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into Bush administration programs like domestic eavesdropping or the treatment of terrorism suspects.

    $$$ Can’t upset the string-pullers who installed you into office.

    But Mr. Obama also said prosecutions would proceed if the Justice Department found evidence that laws had been broken.

    $$$ But not if it makes well-connected people uncomfortable.

    As a candidate, Mr. Obama broadly condemned some counterterrorism tactics of the Bush administration and its claim that the measures were justified under executive powers. But his administration will face competing demands: pressure from liberals who want wide-ranging criminal investigations, and the need to establish trust among the country’s intelligence agencies. At the Central Intelligence Agency, in particular, many officers flatly oppose any further review and may protest the prospect of a broad inquiry into their past conduct.

    $$$ During the campaign, “We will not tolerate flagrant abuses of the constitution. Feel my love, Bots. Feel my passion for the issues.”
    $$$ Now: “Whatever”

    In the clearest indication so far of his thinking on the issue, Mr. Obama said on the ABC News program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” that there should be prosecutions if “somebody has blatantly broken the law” but that his legal team was still evaluating interrogation and detention issues and would examine “past practices.”

    Mr. Obama added that he also had “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

    $$$ “I made a deal with the devil to live in the White House, and swore a death oath to protect my Installers”

    “And part of my job,” he continued, “is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.”

    $$$ That whole “oversight” thing is just so…annoying.

    The Bush administration has authorized interrogation tactics like waterboarding that critics say skirted federal laws and international treaties, and domestic wiretapping without warrants. But the details of those programs have never been made public, and administration officials have said their actions were legal under a president’s wartime powers.

    There was no immediate reaction from Capitol Hill, where there has been a growing sense that Mr. Obama was not inclined to pursue these matters. In resisting pressure for a wider inquiry, he risks the ire of influential Democratic lawmakers on Congressional judiciary and intelligence committees and core constituencies who hoped his election would cast a spotlight on President Bush’s antiterror efforts.

    $$$ Core constituencies who will be learning for the next 1,461 days what a traitor to their causes this guy will be.

    The issue will also be an important early test of his relationship with conservatives in Congress and the country’s intelligence agencies; both groups oppose any further review.

    On other terrorism issues, Mr. Obama suggested in the interview that his approach might be more measured. He said the closing of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which once seemed to be an early top objective, was not likely to happen during the first 100 days of his administration.

    $$$ “Measured” means “no change from Bush’s positions”.

    “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” Mr. Obama said, “and we are going to get it done. But part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication.”

    $$$ “Bunch of folks”. Sheesh, another idiot, just like W.

    Mr. Obama has in the past condemned waterboarding, and he was explicit in the interview that he regarded the use of the technique, in which a subject is made to believe that he is drowning, as torture, prohibited by statute. And the president-elect said he disagreed with Vice President Dick Cheney, who has defended the practice.

    $$$ “…in the past condemned ___” was when he was trying to sucker you Obots out of your votes.
    Now that he’s in, he doesn’t need you anymore. He thought your *opinions* and *issues* were silly, but he had to pay them lip service until Nov. 4th. Now that that’s over, the pretense is no longer needed. “You are dismissed. Oh, and please contribute. And the Suggestion Jar is by the door.”

    “Vice President Cheney, I think, continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations,” Mr. Obama said, “and from my view, waterboarding is torture.”

    $$$…Right, right, and so this is where you launch an investigation, to make things right…

    Mr. Obama’s choice for attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., is widely expected to be asked about his views on these issues at his confirmation hearing this week. Associates say Mr. Holder is open to prosecutions based on specific accusations but is less eager to use the criminal law to commence wide-ranging inquiries. Before being chosen for the Obama cabinet, he said there should be “a reckoning” over Bush administration policies.

    $$$ Holder: “We’ll be taking the Petty Bureaucrat approach, rather than the Bold Leadership approach. We’re trying to fit in with the DC mentality”.

    Lawyers who represented Bush administration officials over the years expressed little surprise that Mr. Obama’s legal and national security team had lost whatever appetite it might have had for delving into alleged misdeeds of the Bush years.

    “A new president doesn’t want to look vengeful,” said a former Bush White House lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, who was a Harvard law classmate of Mr. Obama and has represented administration figures as a private lawyer, “and the last thing a new administration wants to do is spend its time and energy rehashing the perceived sins of the old one.

    “No matter how much the Obama administration’s most extreme supporters may be screaming for blood, the president himself doesn’t seem to share that bloodlust.”
    Moreover, any effort to conduct a wider re-examination would almost certainly provoke a backlash at the country’s intelligence agencies.

    Mark Lowenthal, who was the assistant director for analysis and production at the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2005, said if agents were criminally investigated for doing something that top Bush administration officials asked them to do and that they were assured was legal, intelligence officers would be less willing to take risks to protect the country.

    “There are just huge costs to the day-to-day operation of intelligence,” Mr. Lowenthal, now the president of the Intelligence and Security Academy, said of a potential investigation. He added that he saw no benefit to such an effort because, he said, the public was not clamoring for it.

    But it may be difficult for Mr. Obama to resist the pressure for a fuller public accounting, and lawmakers appear ready to proceed even without his support.

    The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, has already introduced a measure to create a commission to investigate Mr. Bush’s detention, interrogation and rendition policies. Mr. Conyers’s bill would establish a bipartisan nine-member commission with subpoena power and a mandate “to investigate the broad range of policies” undertaken with claims that Mr. Bush’s wartime powers as commander in chief trumped laws and treaties.

    The measure by Mr. Conyers is not the only sign that Congress may force the issue. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the second-ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said such a commission might not be necessary because the panel itself would press the administration to declassify as much information about C.I.A. prisons as possible.

    “With regard to the C.I.A. interrogation program,” Mr. Wyden said in an interview, “if you want to make a break with the flawed policies of the past, as the president-elect has said he wishes to do, you have got to come clean about what happened over the past eight years, and that is why I’m going to push very hard to declassify these documents.”

    Mr. Obama’s legal team could also be forced to react to litigation pending before federal courts. For example, the Bush administration has invoked the state-secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information about its surveillance program being sought in a civil lawsuit. The Obama legal team will have to decide how to handle that case.

    In a related area, Mr. Conyers has indicated that he intends to keep pressing a House Judiciary Committee investigation into the Bush administration’s firings of nine United States attorneys and other accusations of political favoritism in hiring at the Justice Department.

    $$$ and in another related area, Conyers should be pressed for what favors he was granted for throwing his own Michiganders under the Primary Bus.

    The Bush administration has blocked subpoenas from Congress for documents and testimony by White House officials in that case, citing executive privilege. Last week, Mr. Conyers reissued the subpoenas to Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and his former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, in the name of the new Congress, ensuring that a lawsuit over the dispute will stay alive into the Obama presidency.

    Mr. Obama is facing even more intense pressure from liberal, human-rights and civil-liberties groups to allow some kind of investigation into the Bush administration’s terrorism policies.

    $$$ Good luck. He won’t be showing you any love until mid 2012 when he’ll be facing re-election, and a vengeful public.

    Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said it would be a simple matter to start such an inquiry because the Justice Department’s special prosecutor, John H. Durham, is already investigating whether the C.I.A. acted illegally when it destroyed videotapes of its harsh interrogations. Mr. Anders said Mr. Durham’s mandate could be expanded to look into whether the interrogations depicted on the tapes were illegal.

    $$$ Simple? Sure. But will it piss off the people who installed him? You betcha.

    Some groups are focused on prosecution. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said prosecution efforts were justified, even if they did not lead to convictions, as a way to deter future officials from undertaking a similar “assault on the law itself.”

    Other groups want fuller public disclosure. They favor a commission that would answer lingering questions about exactly what happened — like disclosing how many Americans were wiretapped without warrants and making a detailed accounting of what interrogators did to each detainee and the real value of the information they obtained through the enhanced tactics.

    “One of the things that is going to have to happen is an examination and, to the extent possible, a public airing of the validity of the claims that these policies enhanced our security,” said Elisa Massimino, the executive director of Human Rights First. “Because there is a lot of reason to think that calculus hasn’t been accurate.”

  2. Joke:

    Q: What is the difference between the Bush Administration and the incoming Obama Administration?

    A: An extra letter is needed on the name plate on the desk.

  3. Conservatives may be leery of Obama, but may continue to see encouraging signs that he won’t implement what he promised on the campaign trail.

    Liberals may bear hope in the hearts about Obama, but should continue to see discouraging signs that he won’t implement what he promised on the campaign trail.

    NO CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.

  4. Q: What is the difference between the Bush Administration and the incoming Obama Administration?

    A: After a workout, Bush grabs a nap.
    After a workout, Obama grabs a smoke.

  5. So on Guantanamo, he is worried about the Constitution? So why then does he not resolve the lingering question of where he was born (natural born requried by this same Constitution), and produce a valid BC before he takes office. I guess he is only worried about the Constitution when it serve his purpose.

  6. rgb44hrc,

    Thanks for the article on Obama protecting Bush. Obama as we have noted, does not think that Bush committed impeachable offenses. We wrote about that (http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=779) in Part I.

    The PINO Big Blogs refuse to believe that Obama could possibly be the Third Bush Term but the evidence mounts proportional to the injesting of Hopium.

    And yes, the site might be running slow. We are still doing upgrades (another scheduled for about 2 a.m. tonight). We will also have an overhaul of several of our pages and side columns as well as the masthead on January 20 (it’s a surprise).

  7. Frank Rich of NY Times is still wondering (in his column yesterday) about Bush’s credentials to be president, if he was adequately vetted, or if he was let off easy by a compliant and complicit press:

    “…whatever did happen to Bush’s records from the Texas Air National Guard?”

    &&&&
    Ahem. Frank. No concern about Obama’s credentials? Or a complicit media when it helps elect an alleged “liberal” (liberal in wolf’s clothing!).

  8. ADMIN,

    As long as you’re overhauling the side columns, is there any possibility that I could hit ‘increase text size’ for the middle column without the column itself becoming very narrow?

  9. If the pinos would open their eyes they would realize that even before the innaugeration they have lost–and big business has won. They have been defeated by their own biogtry toward women and their delusions on race. Yes, they were betrayed–but they allowed themselves to be betrayed. Of course such self reflection would require them to be honest and honest is not who they are.

  10. wbboei:

    PINOs and other assorted liberals who did support Obama will probably find it too distasteful to turn on Obama. I think most will become his excuse-makers. They’ll just mutter under their breath about what a sell out he is, but in public, we’ll keep hearing: “He’s still better than McCain”.

    Another interesting subset to monitor is all the conservatives who supported Obama. I think they did that for political expediency, but I bet that more of them are poised to become sudden turncoats on Obama.

  11. Admin- As I mentioned last night. The Gitmo quandry is a farcical dilemma meant to designate Obama between the rock and the hard place. Poor ting!

    As I mentioned, Britain is readying space for most of the Gitmo detainees:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    01-01-09

    Britain is preparing to receive foreign terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay so that Barack Obama can shut it down, The Times has learnt. Government sources say that Britain now supports moves to rehouse the detainees, despite previous refusals to help President Bush.

    A Downing Street official said that a process to deal with the detainees was being put in place and that decisions “would be for the Home Secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis”.

    The issue is the subject of intense negotiations within Whitehall. The Foreign Office appears much keener on the idea than other departments, which will have to deal with the suspects’ immigration status and whether they will need special housing and cash benefits. Having foreign terror suspects with no links to the UK housed here inevitably will provoke controversy.

    “Of course the Foreign Office wants to do it, they want to get off to a good start with Obama,” said a Whitehall source. “This is the sort of thing that will require a Cabinet-level decision.”

    Britain accepts that the prison should be closed, according to a diplomatic source, and that the US is going to need help to close it.

    The Government is supporting a call from Portugal for EU members to resettle detainees. The letter from the Foreign Minister Luis Amado to his EU counterparts follows weeks of internal EU discussions. Germany has said that it is considering taking in detainees. Mr Amado plans to raise the issue at a meeting of EU foreign ministers this month. It is also on the agenda at an EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting.

    Late last year the Bush Administration sent a number of European allies, including Britain, a list of detainees, cleared for release by the US military, who face persecution in their home countries. The US State Department cabled about 100 countries for help in closing the jail.

    The entreaties were met largely with refusals, but there is a desire to help Mr Obama, who has vowed to begin moves to close the prison as soon as he takes office this month. The President-elect has not made any formal request for help, but there have been talks between the US State Department and his transition team and he has made clear that he will exert pressure on Europe to take prisoners no longer deemed a threat.

    The US military says that of the 248 prisoners still in Guantánamo Bay, “approximately 60” have been cleared for release.

    One move being discussed in Washington is for the US to take in 17 Chinese Uighurs, who cannot return to China, as an opening gesture. Mr Obama’s plan is for the most dangerous detainees – between 30 and 80 men – to be taken to the US for formal trials.

    This presents problems, however, as evidence against inmates such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was obtained through duress.

    w’s

    timesonline.co.uk/tol/new…cle5426064.ece

    Watch, He will end up sending them all to Britian before they are sent to International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands.

  12. turndown

    Wbboei is most kind, but mistaken about my knowledge base re search engines…

    The most I know is that there is something called a lookback function in some search engines, but I also know it takes a real geek to effectively and honestly use that function.

    That’s why so many investigative bloggers and commentors do page shots (I think that is what they are called,) but I don’t know how to do those either.

    Shoot, I saved something that BMerry dug up for me (the CBC meeting in 9/07) have in my IE Favorites, and can’t even get that to play.

    I’m just not geeky enough. sigh…

    Gotta get back in – pretty cold out here; and in addition to still having to boil drinking, cooking and teethbrushing water, every one is gearing up for -15 degree weather and a blizzard bearing in on us in about 30 hours. Geesch and double sigh…

  13. Emjay says:

    ‘Shoot, I saved something that BMerry dug up for me (the CBC meeting in 9/07) have in my IE Favorites, and can’t even get that to play”:

    Come to think of it, Emjay, the notation with links I posted about the CBC meeting on 9/07 was the one Hillary was disinvited to. That was actually from a post either here or from BMerry’s Rezko files. I didn’t have the source marked, just the body of the post.

    Thanks for making mention of it. Just jogged my memory of the wonderful and diligent work done by BMerry. You are still in Chicago? How long have you been without power?

  14. Mrs. Smith, on December 3, 2008, the first hints that Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo was just a sop to the Hopium addicts appeared. Some Gitmo prisoners might be transferred to other countries. However, the problem has always been complex but Obama said whatever he had to say during election season with no concern for the truth – which is why Obama has raised hopes which cannot be met and which possibly endanger the nation. A transfer to other nations does not necessarily end the problem, because we don’t know if they will simply be released once political pressure builds.

    The feigned surprise at Obama’s broken promise by certain nutroots cannot be taken seriously.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azraH32qUfn0&refer=us

    “Resettlement won’t be easy. The Pentagon has determined that at least 60 Guantanamo detainees are releasable if the U.S. can persuade other countries to accept them. ”

    “In the last seven months, almost 20 have been released. The latest is Salim Hamdan, a former bodyguard and driver for al- Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, convicted of providing material support for terrorism, was sent from Guantanamo to Yemen in November to serve the final month of his 5 1/2-year sentence. ”

    “More than 100 inmates are classified as not releasable because they can’t be put on trial and they also pose a threat to national security. [snip]”

    “The new administration may decide to continue to hold this group as enemy combatants subject to periodic administrative review, though Obama criticized the procedure in 2006. ”

    “Federal judges in Washington are considering about 200 Guantanamo inmates’ challenges to their detention, and the Supreme Court has signaled there may be a limit on indefinite detention. One judge last month ordered the release of five inmates on grounds the government didn’t prove they were enemy combatants. ”

    Obama could also ask Congress to create a new legal status called preventive or administrative detention. Waxman said that would be “politically controversial” and trigger a debate about “the dangers to our legal system and legal principles that flow from institutionalizing a system of detention without trial.’”

    ‘”Alternatively, the Obama administration could declare these detainees to be prisoners of war, which would remove them from the jurisdiction of federal courts.”

    “Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war must be released once hostilities end. President George W. Bush declared that al-Qaeda terrorists weren’t traditional POWs — soldiers who could be relied upon not to attack the U.S. once their country ceases the hostilities of war. ”

    ‘“The real challenge when you are dealing with non-state actors and terrorists in a so-called war on terror” is that they “want to continue to challenge you,” Arend said.”

    “For inmates awaiting trials before the military tribunals, a fresh review of their cases by new political leadership at the Pentagon may enable some to be tried in federal courts or under military court-martial, said Schiff, a former prosecutor.”

  15. admin,

    this unity thing is the one area where I’m still miffed. More specifically at our girl Hillary. Her back room deal with BHO at Feinstein’s house, not to challenge his win, did not rustle any favors with me.

    I give her the smarts to concede, only that it gave her the highest appointment outside the presidency.

    She could have fought and what would have happened? The fraud would have been exposed. She would have really had the title “*itch” locked down til the next century (not by me!) and the American people (lets not forget them) would have had a legitimate president.

    Sadly she did the very thing she told us not to do and that is “don’t give up”

    PUMA is a nice acronym, but UMA suits me just fine.

  16. Admin,
    Despite the close attention being paid to the general election campaign, the average hopium-smoker on the street was nontheless completely unaware that BHO had broken his swaggering promise to “fillibuster FISA,” instead actually voting for it. In order to be aware of or more appropriately outraged about such flim-flam-flip-flops, they’d have to be paying attention to things Waffles actually does, not just what he says in his flowery speeches. With the media covering up his lies, broken promises and hypocrisy, this will be difficult.

  17. Debbie

    Can you source for us exactly what occurred and was said at Feinstein’s house ?

    For almost eight months I have scoured all news sources that I know of, and have never found anyone who says they were there, heard the conversation between any two or all of them, and since all three major players have steadfastly refused to say what they, or any of the others said, I have always felt I didn’t know.

    I would really like to read what happened. Thanks ahead of time.

  18. emjay,

    Thank you very much. I didn’t want geeky details, I was just puzzled by everyone’s terminology.

    Go be warm!

  19. debbie,

    No one knows what happened at Feinstein’s house. Some blogger did an entertainng fiction, but no one really knows.

  20. Turning the Gitmo prisoners over to International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, or some other international organization might not be a bad idea?

  21. turndown-

    you might want to take geeky questions to a Geek site available through google. They are usually charming individuals always will to impart their stellar knowledge.

  22. Admin:

    Thanks for your response:

    I was wondering if you could expand on a few points you mentioned:

    “However, the problem has always been complex but Obama said whatever he had to say during election season with no concern for the truth – which is why Obama has raised hopes which cannot be met and which possibly endanger the nation. A transfer to other nations does not necessarily end the problem, because we don’t know if they will simply be released once political pressure builds.”

    Agreed regarding Obama’s reclessness in making statements he, in good conscience, cannot guarantee.

    “Obama could also ask Congress to create a new legal status called preventive or administrative detention. Waxman said that would be “politically controversial” and trigger a debate about “the dangers to our legal system and legal principles that flow from institutionalizing a system of detention without trial.”

    Would it be advantageous to really go there and muck up the system more than it is? Waxman makes a good and salient point.

    “Alternatively, the Obama administration could declare these detainees to be prisoners of war, which would remove them from the jurisdiction of federal courts.”

    This seems to be the least complicated measure he would choose to undertake. Are you on board and in agreement we are intending to give up our soverignty when joining the New World Order in the interests of Globalization per the IMF? I say this because Juristiction would be centralized in a World Court.

    “Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war must be released once hostilities end. President George W. Bush declared that al-Qaeda terrorists weren’t traditional POWs — soldiers who could be relied upon not to attack the U.S. once their country ceases the hostilities of war.”

    It seems to me the countries these POW’s are from would have to make that determination and guarantee after they (are forced ) to take them back to deal with them under their own laws. Having each country make the determination of the level of danger they pose to other countries. Using their own manpower (former pow’s as highly paid mercenaries) hunting down known primary assets, terrorist heads. (adding, I believe Hillary is capable of having these rouge leaders see the light from a much broader perspective due to her input during the Clinton years of Peace and Prosperity. I also think she is capable of brokering a workable agreement between them and Obama, seeing he was the one willing to meet them without pre-conditions. (he’s married to that statement…unless he pulls another flip-flop)

    “For inmates awaiting trials before the military tribunals, a fresh review of their cases by new political leadership at the Pentagon may enable some to be tried in federal courts or under military court-martial, said Schiff, a former prosecutor.”

    This alternative if implemented provides vast possibilities for amicable resolution. : “It seems to me the countries these POW’s are from would have to make that determination and guarantee after they (are forced ) to take them back and deal with them under their own laws.”

  23. My personal opinion as to what happened at Feinstein’s house was blackmail. I have no evidence what so ever, but just intuition after watching all the past, present and future armtwisting that has gone on with Obama. The delegates and the superdelegates. The piece about Bill’s love life, some articles from LaRouche.
    I think he told her in person what would happen if she challenged him. I think it was a serious enough blackmail that she decided to follow suit as many others have done before her.
    I also watched the look on Bush’s face as he looked at Obama during the meetings of the 4 Presidents. I believe I saw Bush I with a crying hankerchief out of his pocket.
    WE all know Obama can’t be trusted!!!

  24. confloyd Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
    My personal opinion as to what happened at Feinstein’s house was blackmail. I have no evidence what so ever, but just intuition after watching all the past, present and future armtwisting that has gone on with Obama. The delegates and the superdelegates. The piece about Bill’s love life, some articles from LaRouche.
    =====================

    Heh. I’d rather believe Hillary was blackmailing him. Although the timing is more gradual, look what happened: the ‘Clinton Restoration’.

  25. Apologies if this was already posted – but it’s hilarious. Link in next post.
    * * * *
    O muse! How gov doth give us many a poem
    John Kass

    5:47 PM CST, January 10, 2009

    Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich revealed a terrifying mental quirk after the state legislature’s historic vote to impeach him Friday.

    Gov. Dead Meat can’t stop quoting poets from his high school Intro to British Lit class and casting himself as the hero. While his love of fine British literature is commendable, what about our Chicago poets?

    Not Algren and Sandburg, but real poets who understand what he’s going through, like the great poets Mell and Fritchey? Or what about the verse of the world renowned non-Chicago rhymester, Judge Smails?

    At his poetry reading on Friday, Dead Meat stared off into space the way they must teach it at the David Caruso Acting Institute, and recited the final lines from Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “Ulysses”:

    “One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

    Once I stopped retching, I realized that Blagojevich has already done Kipling, playing the man who keeps his head about him while all others are protecting their behinds by impeaching on him.

    What’s next? “Beowulf”?

    Ye gods, let’s hope not. Especially not the oulde English text, with Dead Meat portraying the courageous Dane who hacks a monster to death after guzzling several barrels of mead.

    If Blagojevich does quote “Beowulf,” here’s the passage he must use while casting his enemy, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, as the bloodthirsty Grendel.

    “[Madigan] is no braver, no stronger Than I am! I could kill him with my sword; I shall not, Easy as it would be. This fiend is a bold and famous fighter. But his claws and teeth … Beating at my sword blade, would be helpless.”

    Blagojevich’s saga might last years. He’s facing a federal criminal trial after his political trials, so he might run through all the English poets, and then what?

    Will he go for post-literate modern American stuff, like “The Tao of Pooh” or “Who Moved My Cheese?”

    “This timeless allegory reveals profound truths to individuals and organizations dealing with change,” says the Web site of “Who Moved My Cheese?”—which I will never read, not even if they peel my skin off and roll me in salt.

    But there might be something even more painful. Just think of Dead Meat as a young man in the ’70s, at the Harlem Irving Plaza, sipping an Orange Julius, thinking of disco on Saturday night, reading “Jonathan Livingston Seagull.”

    “Instead of our drab slogging forth and back to the fishing boats, there’s a reason to life! We can lift ourselves out of ignorance, we can find ourselves as creatures of excellence and intelligence and skill. We can be free! We can learn to fly!”

    If he recites that one with a straight face and flaps his arms, I promise to cut off my pinkie finger with a samurai knife, and present it to him, humbly, wrapped in a handkerchief, as atonement.

    Unfortunately, our Anglophile governor has ignored wonderful Chicago poets, like the great wordsmith of the Northwest Side, state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Pastries). His haunting and beautiful lyric was offered Friday on the House floor, as Fritchey filled himself with righteousness as smoothly as sweetened ricotta is pumped into a cannoli:

    “My Illinois is not the Illinois of George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich! Our Illinois is the Illinois of Abraham Lincoln, Paul Simon and Barack Obama!”

    What Fritchey forgot to include in his thunderous oratory is that his father-in-law is 36th Ward boss Sam “Pastries” Banks, and they all backed Blago, and the Banks clan has made a fortune in the zoning business. So Fritchey’s 36th Ward isn’t Lincoln’s Illinois, it’s Pastries’ Place.

    The other great Chicago poet is Blagojevich’s own father-in-law, the boss of the 33rd Ward, Ald. Richard Mell. They fell out with a public spat four years ago when Mell accused Blago of selling state jobs for cash. Friday’s vote was the product of that fight.

    What bothered Mell is that he made Blagojevich out of nothing, yet once installed as governor, Blagojevich callously dumped him for the currently indicted fundraising chief Christopher Kelly.

    In 2005, an emotional Mell offered reporters the allegory of the faithful wife who helps her husband become a success, only to be discarded for a hot younger babe. The words are all Mell’s, but the stanza breaks are mine.

    Now he’s at the top. And he says, ‘What a great man I am!’ And she says, ‘Wait a second, I remember you when you were crying that we needed more money Or you were crying that you thought you’d fail one of the tests.’

    He, with his gigantic ego cannot stand that anymore. So he jettisons that wife And gets a new trophy wife.

    I am the old wife.

    The new wife is Chris Kelly.

    Mell’s found poetry is unrivaled in Chicago politics because the FBI loved it so.

    But maybe nobody said it better than the profound Judge Smails in “Caddyshack,” as he christened his sailboat, just before Rodney Dangerfield smashed a hole through it.

    It’s easy to grin

    when your ship comes in

    and you’ve got the stock market beat

    But the man worthwhile

    is the man who can smile

    when his shorts are too tight in the seat.

    jskass@tribune.com

    Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

  26. turndownobama-com Says:

    “Heh. I’d rather believe Hillary was blackmailing him. Although the timing is more gradual, look what happened: the ‘Clinton Restoration’.”
    * * * * * *
    Good. Then when Waffles is removed in the constitutional crisis over his qualifications, our girl will feel right at home with the team.

  27. Not sure who might be singing these most scorching of Bob Dylan lyrics to whom: Bot singing to Obama? Me singing to Donna Brazile? Someone singing it Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Nasty Pelosi, Hairy Reid?

    But the lyrics to “Positively 4th Street” drip with derision. Delicious. Enjoy:

    Positively 4th Street
    ————————–

    You got a lotta nerve
    To say you are my friend
    When I was down
    You just stood there grinning

    You got a lotta nerve
    To say you got a helping hand to lend
    You just want to be on
    The side that’s winning

    You say I let you down
    You know it’s not like that
    If you’re so hurt
    Why then don’t you show it

    You say you lost your faith
    But that’s not where it’s at
    You had no faith to lose
    And you know it

    I know the reason
    That you talk behind my back
    I used to be among the crowd
    You’re in with

    Do you take me for such a fool
    To think I’d make contact
    With the one who tries to hide
    What he don’t know to begin with

    You see me on the street
    You always act surprised
    You say, “How are you?” “Good luck”
    But you don’t mean it

    When you know as well as me
    You’d rather see me paralyzed
    Why don’t you just come out once
    And scream it

    No, I do not feel that good
    When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
    If I was a master thief
    Perhaps I’d rob them

    And now I know you’re dissatisfied
    With your position and your place
    Don’t you understand
    It’s not my problem

    I wish that for just one time
    You could stand inside my shoes
    And just for that one moment
    I could be you

    Yes, I wish that for just one time
    You could stand inside my shoes
    You’d know what a drag it is
    To see you

  28. Okay, here’s what I sent Paterson through his site at

    h…./ no w

    161.11.121.121/govemail

    Topic: Women’s Issues
    Subject: NO CK; Maloney or Gillibrand or Cuomo okay
    CK is not qualified as a legislator or as a feminist (she backstabbed Hillary). Maloney, Gillibrand, and other qualified feminists are available. Cuomo also has a good record on women’s issues (and supported Hillary).
    CK would be a puppet for Obama and Ted Kennedy. The US needs qualified, independent-minded Senators, not elitist dynastic puppets.

  29. Am at the store across the street, having begged them for 5 minutes of on-line time.

    This came to me from Darrah Murphy.

    Even if you have problems with any of the other Puma sites, think about supporting this site on this issue.

    ——————————————————————
    Puma PAC to me

    show details 1:05 PM (2 hours ago)

    Dear Puma PAC,

    We have one last chance to urge the FEC to audit the Obama campaign finance reports. The very good news is that Congressional Quarterly and American Thinker have both picked up on our efforts.

    See here:
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003004942

    Because of us, the story of the millions and millions of dollars in shady campaign contributions is not being brushed under the rug.

    The FEC is meeting this week to discuss changes to its oversight processes. Please send them an email and call today and tell them to “Audit the Obama Campaign!”

    The election is over. We are NOT trying to rehash old battles. The issue here is FUTURE elections. After $750 million dollars of money raised from undisclosed donors, foreigners, and corporate bundlers, Obama has blazed the trail for future candidates to simply bypass public funding and BUY the Oval Office. It is unacceptable, and only the threat of an audit will keep these politicians honest.

    Simple follow the instructions below to send your letter and call.

    Thank you and Good Luck,

    Murphy.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    CALL
    FEC Phone: 800-424-9530 (Complaints – General Counsel option 0,
    extension 1650)
    Or
    FEC Office of General Counsel Direct Phone: 202-694-1650
    Ask them if the Obama Campaign is going to be Audited!
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Copy and paster these EMAILS into the BCC line of your email:

    prowl@pumapac.org, info@fec.gov, CommissionerMcGahn@fec.gov, CommissionerBauerly@fec.gov, CommissionerPetersen@fec.gov, CommissionerWalther@fec.gov, CommissionerHunter@fec.gov, CommissionerWeintraub@fec.gov, TDuncan@fec.gov, JStoitz@fec.gov, LMcFarland@fec.gov, BDuffy@fec.gov, JHatfield@fec.gov, JGibson@fec.gov, AForster@fec.gov, APalmer@fec.gov, CHughey@fec.gov, Aterzaken@fec.gov, LCalvert@fec.gov, DKolker@fec.gov, RSmith@fec.gov, GBaker@fec.gov, JJordan@fec.gov, oig@fec.gov, ogc@fec.gov, DonMcGahn@yahoo.com, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, info@gop.com

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Copy and paste this letter into the body of your email, or edit it as you see fit:

    January 12, 2009

    TO: The Federal Election Commission

    RE: Audit for Cause

    Dear Commissioner,

    I am writing to URGE you to open an audit “for cause” of the Obama for America Campaign (FEC Registration # C00431445) and the Obama Victory Fund (C00451393). I am a member of Puma PAC, People United Means Action, a democratic reform movement of grass-roots voters. http://pumapac.org.

    Publicly funded candidates know they must be able to account for their finances. But what happens when there is no audit mandated?

    President-elect Barack Obama spent a record $741 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall. Many of those donors are subject to questions about exceeding campaign donation limits and being legitimate donors. His campaign spent $309 million on Broadcast Media (versus $63 million by the McCain Campaign) while groups like ACORN received funding and abused voter registration processes.

    In addition to the $255 million from undisclosed donors, our studies (MUR 6142) of the reports filed with your agency, by the Obama Campaign, through the Post-General Report, show the following irregularities in their submissions:

    · $2 million — Approximately, in contributions over the $4,600 limit
    · $26 million — Contributions over the $2,300 per campaign limit, reallocated without contributor affirmation.
    · $4-6 million — Contributions from Foreign Addresses (over 4,000 contributors)

    A total of more than 2.5 million donor transactions were submitted to the FEC, with some donors having hundreds of transactions. Many records showed errors on city, state and zip code information and a single donor could have several name variations. Some of the records were flagrant trash like JFGGJJFGJ, JGTJ and KHV, KHV and HKVKV, K VKN K V and HDUSAHFD, DAHSUDHU. Numerous donors had a single letter given for their last name. Others were listed as ANONYMOUS. Our personal favorite was the contributor Doodad Pro, whose occupation was “Loving” and employer was “You”. The records show 1565 transactions from him.

    The numerous campaign limit exceedances, large expense/receipt discrepancy and questionable donor record reporting all warrant audit of the Obama Campaign Finances. The American People need an audit of the Obama for America (C00431445) and Obama Victory Fund (C00451393).

    We are depending on the FEC to assure compliance with fair practices. Please audit the Obama Presidential Campaign Funds.

    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

    Sincerely,
    Your Name and State
    Puma PAC Member
    http://pumapac.org

    ……………………………………………………….
    PumaPac.org http://www.pumapac.org

  30. Help Admin

    Am in moderation, big time!

    And they are closing the store, so I have to get off their line and go home.

    Thank you.

  31. “…the Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs will cover for Obama, we won’t. We will trumpet loudly when Obama breaks a promise.”

    Excellent, Admin. You are the internet’s Tokyo Rose. (although I confess that Guantanamo and its inhabitants are way down on my list of priorities.)

    ABM,

    This is for you.

    World Awaits Clinton Doctrine.

    Hillary Clinton is to break the Obama team’s near- silence on the fighting in Gaza next week when she sets out her thinking on the Middle East and beyond.
    During the past 10 years, the prospective secretary of state has marked herself out as a dependable ally of Israel. Last year, at the annual conference of Aipac, the pro-Israel group, she said she rejected negotiating with Hamas while it refused to recognise Israel.
    Now, with fighting raging in Gaza, the world will be keenly watching her confirmation hearing on Tuesday for insights into her stance towards the region. Since Israel launched its attack two weeks ago other countries have taken the lead in seeking a ceasefire, while Barack Obama, the president-elect who takes office on January 20, has limited himself to vague generalities on the conflict.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28d13552-dede-11dd-9464-000077b07658.

  32. Mrs. Smith, those are not our prescriptions. We were quoting the Bloomberg article.

    The article (from December 3, 2008) hints at what Obama meant this past Sunday. The possibility of a separate legal system would be merely a change in name not an actual change in what Guantanamo represents. (Glenn Grenwald writes quite well about this point).

    As to declaring the Guantanamo inmates POWs, the article outlines the problems with this alternative (namely, these are non-state actors so that imprisonment would not end after hostilities cease because there is no state sponsored declaration of war. This means the Guantanamo inmates might be imprisoned forever without legal recourse, which is one of the items Obama promised to change.

    Our point is that Obama is now calling complicated what has always been complicated in order to break his promises.

  33. Obama clearly has been stung by getting caught breaking his Guantanamo promise. The L.A. Times is reporting that Obama will issue an executive order on his first day or first week to close Guantanamo.

    However, Obama is once again pleasuring himself with words.

    The L.A. Times also says that Obama will issue the order to close Guantanamo but that Guantanamo will not close. Imagine if Bush said “I’ll close it but keep it open” – that is effectively what Obama is saying.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-gitmo13-2009jan13,0,200194.story

    “President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office — and perhaps his first day — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to two presidential transition team advisers.”

    “It’s unlikely the detention facility at the Navy base in Cuba will be closed anytime soon. In an interview last weekend, Obama said it would be “a challenge” to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.”

  34. The ACLU on the Obama “I’ll close it but keep it open” leak:

    http://aclu.org/safefree/detention/38301prs20090112.html

    “While the news from unnamed sources in the Obama transition team about the closing of Guantánamo is certainly welcome, what we need are specifics about the timeline for the shuttering of the military commissions and the release or charging of detainees who have been indefinitely held for years. Executive orders are an important first step. But we trust that President-elect Obama will provide a detailed plan for ending the Guantánamo military commissions, shutting down the Guantánamo military prison and ending President Bush’s legacy of indefinite detention. An executive order lacking such detail, especially after the transition team has had months to develop a comprehensive plan on an issue this important, would be insufficient. “

  35. My email to the Los Angeles Times writer who takes a shot at Hillary in an article about the GOP rolling out the welcome mat for her at the confirmation hearing:

    Paul . . . .

    I read your article and one of your statements caught my eye: “Clinton has fanned political passions as first lady, as New York’s junior senator and as a presidential candidate”.

    Can you prove that Hillary fanned political flames as New York’s junior senator? The truth is she passed more legislation than any freshman senator in history, was widely respected on both sides of the aisle, and ably served her constituents. She won her senate election 66%. Your statement is false.

    Can you prove she fanned political flames as a presidential candidate? I know how the press reported it but I was on the campaign trail as a volunteer, have personal knowledge of what both campaigns did and I have a dossier on what big media did to undermine her campaign. Don’t worry you are not in it.

    Paul, big media has lost its way. One of your venerated leaders Chris Matthews has stated that the goal of the media is to make the Obama Administration look good. I must be old fashioned because in my view the goal of the media is to speak truth to power and to voters–so they can think for themselves.

    Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the public no longer trusts the media. The financial travails of your newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Seattle Post Intelligencer are symptomatic of that problem. The answer is not government bailouts but a return to honest standards of journalism. Viewed from that perspective your article is a further step in the wrong direction.

    WB

  36. Emjay, turndownobama-com

    you were both right to question the legitimacy of my speculation on the Feinstein house visit. I did not copy any enternaiment blog or find anything that backs up what I said. Fact is you are right, that’s a better kept secret than what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

    In my own world I believe that had Hillary challenged the election she would be the one taking the oath 1/20/09 instead of Oblahblah.

    Sorry I left the 2 of you thinking I was that fly on the wall.

  37. In case anyone is wondering, it looks like Hillary’s hearing begins at 9:30 tomorrow morning (EST) on C-SPAN2.

  38. Wbboei, it’s amazing how much Big Media loves to bash Hillary at every turn.

    ============
    BTW, Burris will be seated as a Senator to replace Obama.

    From the Secretary of the Senate:

    “The Secretary of the Senate has determined that the new credentials presented today on behalf of Mr. Burris now satisfy Senate Rules and validate his appointment to the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In addition, as we requested, Mr. Burris has provided sworn testimony before the Illinois House Committee on Impeachment regarding the circumstances of his appointment.

    “We have spoken to Mr. Burris to let him know that he is now the Senator-designate from Illinois and as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a Senator-elect.

    “Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week. We are working with him and the office of the Vice President to determine the date and time of the swearing-in.

    “As we had outlined to Mr. Burris, a path needed to be followed that respects the rules of the Senate. We committed to Mr. Burris that once those requirements were satisfied, we would be able to proceed. We are pleased that everything is now in order, we congratulate Senator-designee Burris on his appointment and we look forward to working with him in the 111th Congress.”

  39. now that we’re bleeding from the jugular we get this from the Oblahblah doctors…
    ****
    Gay bishop invited to pre-inauguration event in DC

    AP – 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
    Sent 125 times
    CONCORD, N.H. – The first openly gay Episcopal bishop will say a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial for one of President-elect Barack Obama’s first inauguration events.
    +++

    I expect to see a public correction for every misstep this will be interesting to watch. I think I start keeping score

  40. Hi Guys-
    I know most of you are familiar with Dr. Lynette Long’s great radio show on BlogTalkRadio for No Quarter “Sins of Omission”
    Lynette is feeling under the weather tonight, so I’m guest hosting (and I need lots of help!)
    So, if you guys are available between 9-10 p.m. Tonight (Monday) please call in.

    Our topic will be Hillary’s confirmation hearings tomorrow & what you think about her accepting the post of Secretary of State…
    I’m hoping we may delve into the larger issues of whether or not this is another example of a woman getting shot down for the top spot but than acquiescing to a lesser role —is this a feminist issue?
    (just throwing this out there)

    Please call in!!

    Xoxo-
    P.

    Call in number:
    347-677-0792

    To Listen to the radio show:
    http://Www.blogtalkradio/nqr

    Go to “Sins of Omission”
    Starts at 9 pm—Ends at 10 pm

  41. basil9 Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    ABM,

    This is for you.

    World Awaits Clinton Doctrine.

    ================

    And for me. What a wonderful headline! For a moment life seems sane again.

  42. Here is an interesting guy to watch. His latest critique of the Beloved Leader is:

    Why Obama is Causing a Liberal Freakout
    January 12, 2009 12:06 AM ET | James Pethokoukis

    For many liberals, that Obamagasmic “tingle going up their legs” from the campaign season — to paraphrase MSNBC’s Chris Matthews — may have crept upward into stomach-churning queasiness as Inauguration Day nears. Consider this counterfactual: If John McCain had won the 2008 presidential election (just a scant half million votes needed to swing the other way in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia … I know, I know), it’s easy to imagine him picking Bono-approved, “new age” evangelist Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, leaving Robert Gates as defense secretary and proposing an economic stimulus package that included $300 billion in tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

    Yet that’s just the sort of “big change” Barack Obama has provided in the two months since winning a near-landslide victory over the man Democrats derided as “McBush.” (Let’s see will.i.am make a YouTube video about this right-turn of events.) Even worse for the Left, Obama advisers are now signaling, says the New York Times, “that they may put off renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, overhauling immigration laws, restricting carbon emissions, raising taxes on the wealthy and allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.” You know, like, pretty much the very heart and soul of the liberal policy agenda. Even healthcare reform might only be getting what aides call a “down payment” as a “sign of dedication to the broader goals.” Let the wretching begin, Daily Kossacks. (Fun Fact: Obama gave his big economic speech at George Mason University, a bastion of free-market scholarship.)

    But it’s Obama’s $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will be ground zero in this coming liberal internecine battle. “Way too much Reagan, not nearly enough FDR,” griped some key liberals about a plan that would, in addition to the tax cuts, still provide a whopping half-trillion dollars over two years in government spending for infrastructure, healthcare, education, clean energy, grants to states, and aid to lower-income and unemployed folks.

    Some of their greatest hysterical hits: 1) “The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat,” wrote NY Times columnist Paul Krugman. “In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed”; 2) the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by Obama transition co-chair John Podesta, said the Obama plan was chock-full of “special interest favorites” and “long-discredited conservative proposals”; 3) Sen. Tom Harkin said Obamanomics “still looks a little more to me like trickle-down,” invoking a Reagan-era economic invective that liberals love to hurl; and 4) Nancy Pelosi, who seems to actually believe the Obama campaign spin that the Bush tax cuts somehow caused the recession, blurted out this gem: “Put me down as clearly as you possibly can as one who wants to have those tax cuts for the wealthiest in America repealed.” Duly noted, Madam Speaker.

    Now all this angst and agita are can’t-miss signs of a little understood liberal malady, Clinton Derangement Syndrome: the crippling fear that the progressive president you just elected to launch a pricey new New Deal and nationalize healthcare will, once in office, morph into a budget-balancing, tax-cutting, free trade-loving disappointment. And Obama did little to quell those fears during his appearance on This Week with George Stephanopolous. Asked how he was going to pay for healthcare, Obama gave a reply straight from 1993: “Well, you know, these are going to be major challenges. And we’re going to have to make some tough choices.”

    But it really seems to be taxes that has put liberals into a tizzy. Such a fuss. Tax cuts have become a policy “no-go zone” for many Democrats despite the success of both Clinton’s capital-gains tax cut and the famous JFK tax cuts. But apparently Team Obama sees things somewhat differently.

    Call it reality-based economics, at least more so than what is practiced by Pelosi, Harkin, et al. Centrist economic advisers such as Lawrence Summers, Peter Orszag, Austan Goolsbee, and Christina Romer have actually looked at the data and come to a different conclusion from the folks on Capitol Hill: 1) Infrastructure spending doesn’t work fast enough to help an economy in freefall. Indeed, Orszag has called a “green” stimulus approach “totally impractical”; 2) there just aren’t enough “shovel ready” projects out there. In a report on the Obama plan, advisers Jared Bernstein and Romer point out that there “is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts … can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly”; and 3) tax cuts boost growth. Romer has produced research that found “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects” of roughly $3 in GDP growth for every $1 of tax cuts.

    But liberals shouldn’t fear — nor conservatives be reassured — that Obama is somehow morphing into “Reagan with a human face,” to rework an old Marxist chestnut. Or another Clinton. Obama is still going to push for a dramatic government expansion into healthcare, demand higher taxes once the economy is in gear, launch a new wave of business regulation and spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure, both green and grey. Their sort of “change” is still on the way, it’s just going to take a bit longer than they expected. Like Obama said on Election Night: “We may not get there in one year or even one term …”

  43. emjay,

    You are fantastically dedicated! Do you need a new laptop or something?

    Go be warm, take care of yourelf! Ignore all my idle questions!

  44. basil9 thank you for your comment about Hillary and her commitment to world peace and stability.She is I believe, going to be the greatest SOS in modern history.The world is anxiously awaiting her steady hand and great mind to untangle the mess
    of foreign policy and relations and not bow to the demands of those who would keep the fires of global domination alive.I have followed her career since watergate and my admiration has never faltered as she was humiliated and degraded by the Media and leaders of her own party.Obama will not survive his first term as loyal Americans realize and become aware of the greatest usurption of power in our history and it all started with a playing card labeld RACE.Tomorrow morning 10 am C-Span2 the hearings for her confirmation will be covered.I predict a fair and brilliant performance that will highlight the glaring truth that
    she truly is “A NATIONAL TREASURE” and should be the 44th
    President sworn in on Jan 20th instead of the man from nowhere.

    By ABM90. Forever grateful my friends for your efforts on her behalf.

  45. admin Says:

    January 12th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    “Our point is that Obama is now calling complicated what has always been complicated in order to break his promises.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You are technically right Admin.. But as usual, the truth will never be brought to the fore. This is and will always be (as long as Obama is Pres) Theater.

    The UK is behind him 100%. The news of closing Gitmo would never have been headline news on msnbc if they didn’t have a plan to get him out of this pickle with a shred of credibility. They will state exactly what is in the Times piece:

    timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece

    “Britain accepts that the prison should be closed, according to a diplomatic source, and that the US is going to need help to close it. The Government is supporting a call from Portugal for EU members to resettle detainees. The letter from the Foreign Minister Luis Amado to his EU counterparts follows weeks of internal EU discussions.

    Germany has said that it is considering taking in detainees. Mr Amado plans to raise the issue at a meeting of EU foreign ministers this month. It is also on the agenda at an EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting.”

    “The US military says that of the 248 prisoners still in Guantánamo Bay, “approximately 60” have been cleared for release. One move being discussed in Washington is for the US to take in 17 Chinese Uighurs, who cannot return to China, as an opening gesture. Mr Obama’s plan is for the most dangerous detainees – between 30 and 80 men – to be taken to the US for formal trials.”

    The way this event will be played out by the media is that Obama has kept his promise by proceeding with a gradual transitional shutdown of Guantánamo with the help of the UK and and many European countries participating in a joint effort to close the facility. We all know it was a promise he could never fulfill on his own because of the complexities involved.

    The media will play Obama as the conquering hero with the DNC Democrats strewing rose petals at his feet. Trumpets signaling his arrival before he takes the podium for his Grand acceptance speech of how for humanities sake he has effected change by demonstrating he is effectively changing Bush policy and this was the first step!

    The sting of calling this a “Broken Promise” is not in the cards. People will not look at the details. All they will see and hear is the bottom line done with great embellishment by Big Media.

    Jeebus, I expect him to be wearing a toga and a laurel wreath after the media get through with this grandiose promotion dubbing him the hero of the 21st century.

  46. spega Says:

    Call in number:
    347-677-0792

    To Listen to the radio show:

    h….w
    blogtalkradio/nqr

    Go to “Sins of Omission”
    Starts at 9 pm—Ends at 10 pm
    ===============

    It’s on right now. When they say “894 you’re on the air” is that part of your real phone number they’re giving out?

  47. Mrs Smith

    Finding a helper geek at google – fabulous.
    Actually finding my own geek – not hapening.

    Help!
    ——————————————–

    Turndown

    Accidental find last fall: Firefox brings Big Pink up twice as large as IE7.

    Guess what I use, besides my trifocals, to read Big Pink?

    ——————————————————–
    Ms Smith

    Retired to SW Iowa several years ago. Chicago is Mom and Dad birthplace…many family there for
    many years. I used to work up there…N. Oak up to 2600 N. Grant apartments over time, then marriage
    and the Air Force in Ohio, then Iowa for grad work, teahing and other stuff…and before one knows what
    is happening, half a century is history.

    —————————————————————————————-
    Turndown

    Love ya. Nope…love my laptop, except for the black squid ink splotches that came after a summer
    thunderstorm w/ beloved laptop still outside…a big oopsie.

    Your ??? are stimulating. I, on the other hand am a procrastinator…which is why I am on my fourth try at signing up for, or into, you know what.

    I use the courthouse wi-fi to get onto internet. In rural areas, other access choices are DSL,.. too slow and expensive for what one gets….or cable company, very expensive and network/cable TV I also have to buy – and don’t want…or satellite – yuck.

    I have developed an aluminum pie pan antenna to get my wi-fi signal, so that I don’t have to sit in front of an open bedroom window with my head, shoulders and arms at freezing temp exposure. Pie pan antennas are most unreliable, especially in the face of a N-NW 40 mph wind. I am at times forced to beg net access from my neighbor, a store…because I live downtown, and most of us have 18-24 inch thick brick walls—118 year old buildings.

    So, sometimes I’m on net, sometimes I’m off…mostly in the winter.

  48. Emjay Says:

    Turndown

    Accidental find last fall: Firefox brings Big Pink up twice as large as IE7.

    Guess what I use, besides my trifocals, to read Big Pink?
    ===============

    Dunno about IE, but on Firefox iirc Ctl-+ makes text larger, Ctl-minus makes it smaller. Anyway that works with Chrome browser.

    Trouble is that whatever browser I’m in, or whatever keys I use, the larger the text gets, the more narrow the center column gets. So pretty soon I’m seeing only one or twowords per liine.

  49. So we all have a date tomorrow morning on c-span to watch our girl in action?

    I’ll bring pear cobbler…too early for popcorn.

    Dubbya’s full presser from this morning…dubs, flubs, histronics, and all, is on c-span for your viewing pleasure…first page, really sharp video

  50. blue Says:

    January 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
    Here is an interesting guy to watch. His latest critique of the Beloved Leader is:

    Why Obama is Causing a Liberal Freakout
    January 12, 2009 12:06 AM ET | James Pethokoukis
    ———————————–
    Blue: brilliant article! Thanks very much for posting!

  51. Emjay Says:

    January 12th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Mrs Smith Finding a helper geek at google – fabulous.

    Actually finding my own geek – not happening.Help!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You didn’t mention what is causing the power outtage.

    Is it the storm blowing out of Chicago?

    Stay warm whatever is causing the hardship.{{hugs}}

  52. # wbboei Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    My email to the Los Angeles Times writer who takes a shot at Hillary in an article about the GOP rolling out the welcome mat for her at the confirmation hearing:

    Paul . . . .

    I read your article and one of your statements caught my eye: “Clinton has fanned political passions as first lady, as New York’s junior senator and as a presidential candidate”.

    Can you prove that Hillary fanned political flames as New York’s junior senator? The truth is she passed more legislation than any freshman senator in history, was widely respected on both sides of the aisle, and ably served her constituents. She won her senate election 66%. Your statement is false.

    Can you prove she fanned political flames as a presidential candidate? I know how the press reported it but I was on the campaign trail as a volunteer, have personal knowledge of what both campaigns did and I have a dossier on what big media did to undermine her campaign. Don’t worry you are not in it.

    Paul, big media has lost its way. One of your venerated leaders Chris Matthews has stated that the goal of the media is to make the Obama Administration look good. I must be old fashioned because in my view the goal of the media is to speak truth to power and to voters–so they can think for themselves.

    Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the public no longer trusts the media. The financial travails of your newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Seattle Post Intelligencer are symptomatic of that problem. The answer is not government bailouts but a return to honest standards of journalism. Viewed from that perspective your article is a further step in the wrong direction.

    WB

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    hahahaha! Nice reality slap wbb. Including the bankrupt NYT in that scenario… Soon, they will be after us next if we dare criticize the “ONE”! I think I read somewhere, they are going to try controlling the net. With Deval Patrick wanting to charge sales tax for goods purchased on the internet for MA residents. It won’t be long before we will have to pay by the minute for (government) internet access..

  53. Morning all: A day to remember in our history.Hillary will show the eager and waiting world what genuine leaders are made of as she endures and triumphs the hidden agendas of her confirmation
    commitee good old boys.This appointment is the most important of her long career and will showcase the failure of our political system to put country first in their rush to barter pork and favoritism for cradle to grave job security.
    Up early and clock watching to see my dream candidate give us all a sparkling lesson of what we lost by being dealt the bottom of the deck race card by a stranger in our midst.
    God bless you Hillary and show them that women are equal no matter the challenge.

    By ABM90 This is the Super Bowl for me and family.

  54. ABM 90: Hillary is truly is “A NATIONAL TREASURE”
    ——————————–
    My friend, that is the absolute truth. She will impress everyone today with her charm, knowledge and power. It is only a matter of time before what you have said so often comes to pass, i.e. people look at him, remember her and say to themselves and later aloud omg we could have had Hillary.

  55. Including the bankrupt NYT in that scenario… Soon, they will be after us next if we dare criticize the “ONE”! I think I read somewhere, they are going to try controlling the net. With Deval Patrick wanting to charge sales tax for goods purchased on the internet for MA residents. It won’t be long before we will have to pay by the minute for (government) internet access..
    ———————————-
    Mrs. Smith- yes, I forgot to mention the New York Times. They are an important example of what is dreadfully wrong with our media, and their bottom line shows it.

    I know the Obamafascists would like to regulate the internet to extend their control over free thought, save the porn industry, and rob from the poor so they can give to the rich (a noble gesture if there ever was one)–but I for one think it will backfire big time when and if the do. I do not think this is the time in history to be creating new taxes on something like that. If they are foolish enough to do that they may find that alot of other taxes do not get paid. Also, he will become a pariah with the very groups who supported him. Even with them there will come a tipping point and it could well be that.

    There are many people who now believe that the 21st century will be the Chinese century–even though the livliest intellects of our time like Arian Huffington and Kermit the frog will argue that is untrue. But assume it is true, and assume further that they are bent on world domination, then what happens when we stop buying their defective products–because we cannot afford them and because they are as I said defective. Remember, the Bush Administation deal was you buy our T bills and the American People will buy your defective products. If they are bent on world domination and we are not buying their products and their own economy is in trouble and if we are a military competitor praytell why they would continue buying their t-bills. But silly me, I forget too quickly that in seven short days we will have a messiah, and little questions of that nature will in the words of Longfellow”fold their tents like Arabs and silently steal away–like they did on 9/11. Forgive me, but I am having a little trouble this morning believing the kindom of god is at hand. Like Hillary said in that New Hamphire I am just wild about: “I guess I’ve lived a little long”.

  56. Ejay asked me to post the article I responded to above. The writer never responded to my email. Hardly surprising. Nothing like respecting your audience. They live in a hermetically sealed world. That is a good way to be wrong and over time irrelevant.
    ——————————
    By Paul Richter
    January 12, 2009

    Reporting from Washington — Long considered one of the nation’s most polarizing figures, Hillary Rodham Clinton steps into her new role as America’s chief diplomat this week with a Senate confirmation hearing that is likely to look more like a tribute than an examination of a controversial politician.

    Clinton has fanned political passions as first lady, as New York’s junior senator and as a presidential candidate. Yet she is collecting rhetorical bouquets from Republicans as she prepares for the Tuesday committee appearance that will open the way for her fourth public incarnation — as secretary of State.

    Obama bumps up against egos in CongressObama wants quick action on economic stimulus plan

    “Very knowledgeable,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said after a private meeting with her Thursday. “Her appointment is a net plus for the administration and the country.”

    “She’s been tested in a lot of ways,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who called Clinton a “known commodity.”

    The warm reception reflects in part the courtesy the Senate extends to its own and to a popular new president. But it also shows how attitudes from across the political divide have eased over the course of Clinton’s long public life.

    » A mixture of old and new faces makes up the beginnings of the 44th president’s Cabinet. The nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

    “She’s now a fixture of American politics; this gives you a sense of how people can be gradually accepted,” said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University and a former congressional staff member. “Her record’s familiar, and they don’t see her as mysterious or fear they’re going to be booby-trapped by her.”

    In a similar transformation, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) was once considered a partisan hatchet man, but more recently has been remembered — and hailed — as having been a public-spirited pillar of the Senate. On Thursday, the retired Dole introduced another former Senate majority leader, Democrat Tom Daschle, at the South Dakotan’s confirmation hearing to be secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Conservative attitudes toward Clinton have changed as she has detailed her foreign policy views, which lean toward the center or even the center-right. She has been hawkish on the defense of Israel and tough on Iran, and said during her presidential campaign that the United States would “obliterate” the Muslim country if it attacked Israel.

    Isakson said he found a long discussion with Clinton on the Middle East to be “very satisfactory.”

    Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, has scheduled a committee vote on Clinton’s nomination two days after the hearing, reflecting his confidence that her confirmation won’t require more lengthy debate.

    However, one issue likely to produce some discomfort is that of President Clinton, whose foundation has received millions of dollars from foreign governments and businesses, raising questions of potential conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton’s foundation last month released contribution records and has promised to disclose future donations annually.

    Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the committee, intends to raise the issue in his opening remarks. Other senators also intend to make clear that the subject causes them some concern.

    But senators and aides said they didn’t expect the topic to overshadow all others, since the lawmakers want to explore Sen. Clinton’s views on the full range of foreign policy issues. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Lugar, said he expected close questioning on the topic but added: “I don’t expect it to be protracted throughout the day.”

    One question that may not be settled until Tuesday is whether Clinton will bring her spouse and family to her confirmation hearing, as is Senate custom for Cabinet nominees.

    Clinton’s aides said that because of scheduling issues, it was not clear whether the former president would accompany his wife.

    While having him there — sitting behind her in the audience — would have some advantages, it could also prompt questions about the former president, said Tom C. Korologos, a lobbyist and longtime congressional aide who has helped prepare nominees for such hearings.

    “Will he travel with her?” Korologos asked. “Who gets off the plane first?”

    Korologos thinks it would be a mistake for the former president to appear.

    Yet some committee members are eager for Bill Clinton to play an important role in his wife’s job as secretary of State.

    Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said after a meeting with Hillary Clinton that he wanted Bill Clinton to provide advice and would favor a formal role if that was what President-elect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted.

    “I would be comfortable with getting his help on a whole series of fronts,” Casey said.

    paul.richter@latimes.com

  57. Morning wbb,

    Reading the early morning news, Kerry claims there won’t be any stumbling blocks thrown at Hillary. I’ve learned over time not to get too excited with expectations that Hillary will treated fairly and given her due for all her accomplishments. I’m having a hard time believing Kerry is just going to shower her with praise and accolades when she appears at the hearing today before the Foreign Relations Committee. He said she may be confirmed by the full Senate, perhaps before Inauguration Day. I’ll be saying a prayer and holding my breath until it’s over and done with. No one will be more surprised than me if this whole process goes as smoothly as Kerry predicts..

    Check this out . Theres already a Lewinsky story out on the web in a related category. It just never ends.
    h..
    hillaryunleashed.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/hillary-appears-set-for-senate-ok-as-top-diplomat/

  58. Big Media: not really on the side of the United States, now are they? If Hitler had given interviews, I am certain todays bunch of clowns would be beating his door down for interviews, starting with cnn. Club Med for the Georgetown set.
    ——————————–
    A reporter goes behind the lines in Ghazni province, where the Talibs live comfortably, appear to have no fear of troops, and are gracious hosts.

  59. Mrs. Smith: with all that is at stake here it will not get out of control. There will be some tense moments but she will be prepared. Big media will highlight anything they can–we know that. But think about the consequences for the country and for this administration if this nomination gets in trouble or is made to look bad through internal or external partisan maneuvering. It will not be allowed to happen. If it does, it will be a megablow to bambi. There are borders to this conflict and they will not be exceeded. If a congressman goes off message here my sense is they will adjourn and bitch slap him to death.

  60. sorry, I meant a senator, not a congressman. What I would worry about is more subtle efforts by Kerry or others to box Hillary in in terms of future action. She is 100 IQ points smarter than old horseface (Mr Ed if you prefer) so I think she will step around it. Also, this may not be the best forum to flesh out the details of the Clinton doctrine, but it will be a good opportunity to lay down a few markers.

  61. A reporter goes behind the lines in Ghazni province, where the Talibs live comfortably, appear to have no fear of troops, and are gracious hosts.
    ——————————–
    This is Peter A reporting for CNN and I am behind Taliban lines, eating drinking and interviewing my new friends with the taliban and outside of the fact that they torture women and kill American troops with reckless abandon, I have discovered that they are nice people and gracious hosts. During the course of this interview I will explain the equities of their position on killing and beheading. You will find as I did that people are people the world over and we just need to understand eachother and celebrate the differences

    Vulf–I mean idiot Brown (Bltzr is retired) back to you.

  62. # wbboei Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Mrs. Smith: with all that is at stake here it will not get out of control. There will be some tense moments but she will be prepared. Big media will highlight anything they can–we know that. But think about the consequences for the country and for this administration if this nomination gets in trouble or is made to look bad through internal or external partisan maneuvering. It will not be allowed to happen. If it does, it will be a megablow to bambi. There are borders to this conflict and they will not be exceeded. If a senator goes off message here my sense is they will adjourn and bitch slap him to death.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Reading the article at H-unleashed, a panel of three will be appointed to arbitrate if conflict arises. Thats a good sign. So if Kerry is going to be a gentleman (snake), then we’ll have to wait and see what happens later on during the week if someone steps out of line and tries to embarrass Hillary before the Inauguration. Whoever is scheduled to cause the embarrassment should be marked hereafter with a watchful eye.

    And you were right. Huma is on board with Hillary…

  63. Jan. 13: Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to face intense questioning from her colleagues at a confirmation hearing to become Barack Obama’s secretary of state. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports
    —————————–
    What else should we expect from the demented dwarf? Isnt it time that she and that bozo she is married to hung their heads in shame and exited the national stage? Where is the vaudville hook when we need it? Their act is so bad that the audience is starting to throw tomatoes–rotten as they are.

  64. I honestly think that Hillary will shine as professional and extremely intelligent in these hearings. I also think that no matter what, the media will find a way to turn a compliment into an insult as often as possible where she is concerned.

    the adage that “with friends like these who needs enemies” definitely applies twofold.

  65. Again, I think it is more the media who will tar and feather than anyone else. Hillary can run circles around the most devious political idiots in the White House. The media, who seem to have no standards or rules they must abide by, will chastise, ridicule, twist the truth, and finally pat themselves on their humped backs for a job well done while the rest of us just shake our heads at their moronic and amoral behavior.

  66. wbboei Says:

    January 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am
    ————————————————-
    I saw that article yesterday morning. I am fed up with the constant “she is a polarizing figure” slam that they all feel they have to push. If anyone has polarized both congress and this nation it is Obama and his mutants, inclusive of the bought and paid for media.

  67. wbboei Says: But think about the consequences for the country and for this administration if this nomination gets in trouble or is made to look bad through internal or external partisan maneuvering. It will not be allowed to happen. If it does, it will be a megablow to bambi. There are borders to this conflict and they will not be exceeded.
    ===================

    That’s my sense of it. They will not want to embarrass Obama by turning down a nomination of his that is very popular. Also they don’t want her back in the Senate!

  68. Great pic of Chelsea with her mom before the hearing.

    news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//090113/ids_photos_ts/r3437299304.jpg/

  69. Paula, I am watching but also working on teacher work so I’m not paying attention to everything.

    Sen. Corker just made a nice defense of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. Evidently Sen. Luger made comments earlier that must have been somewhat of a smear. Nice to see fellow senators sticking up for her..

    Overall, its difficult to hear her talk about the president-elect all the time. But then I keep in mind that she will be a truly powerful figure who will help our country and someone who will keep Bambi from having a truly crazy foreign policy.

  70. Paula,

    Maybe those who are at C-span aren’t posting here. [ smile ]

    Caught part of your radio broadcast last night. Susan has a wonderful voice! You are so well-informed!

    When it says, “8239, you’re on the air” is that giving out part of the caller’s real phone number?

  71. Paula

    I know of at least 3 who are glued to c-span or ABC-via-Yahoo…ABM90, Wbboei, and me.

    I just bop over here to read and type when I occassionly lose my wi-fi signal.

    She has deep circles under her eyes, but looks so calm and mentally organized and beautiful and of course by now is speaking w/o notes…my god, she’s smart, and quick.

  72. Godspeed, Hillary who should be PRESIDENT!!!!!

    Knowledge that the Bill Ayers radicalization of America’s youth is actually in place as far south as northern Florida and part of that is rewriting past history, the article written by By Paul Richter
    January 12, 2009 has me thinking. Bias against Hillary and Bill aside [or is it a cover for?] are these reporters not passing the Bill Ayers mantra forward through pre-writing what future history?? IOW, they write it how they want it to be not how it is.

  73. Emjay, I noticed the deep circles under her eyes also and was a little disappointed that she was not the jubilant Hillary. However, she is ever the competent Hillary. I loved that someone said she wished Chelsea was not sitting behind her but in fronr of her. I love Chelsea, too. Is the lighting or what?

  74. What a pleasure it is to watch and listen to the woman who should be PEBO as she articulates her ideas, her vision and her goals.

    Her breath of knowledge is stunning and I was impressed with her advicacy for women’s rights worldwide.

  75. Watching on internet…Hillary great as usual. Lugar was not offensive at all imo..Rather, Kerry asked questions he knew she clearly could not answer and came he off petty. She is shining as usual, and my only regret, is that she should be President with such a great intellect and ability to understand what must be done to resolve the current challenges we face.

  76. Tweetie tingle-legs saying HRC’s performance is a ‘tour-de-force.”

    “Is there a subject on the planet she isn’t conversant with?” he says.

    That motherf***ing pig.

    She is proving nationwide that she is the superior person, intellectually, morally and tempermentally.

  77. I’m at work, too, JanH, lol. I was just taking a C-SPAN break. 🙂

    Just came out of a staff meeting, so I missed the last hour. How’s it going?

    I noticed the circles under her eyes, too, but I still think she looks great, especially when she smiles. I imagine she hasn’t gotten a lot of sleep the past few days preparing for the hearing.

  78. Boxer and HRC shone the glaring light of the existence of world-wide oppression of women on the congress and made it something the f***ing media cannot ignore, brush-off or dismiss.

    That was a powerful moment. HRC said it would be one of her priorities.

    BTW- breath=breadth

  79. It’s partly because of a-holes like Tweety that she isn’t going to be sworn in next week. Thanks for nothing, Chris.

    At least if she can’t be president, as SoS she’ll be able to put her astounding skill set to great use.

  80. agreed..along with extreme left, Kennedy’s, jealous female governors/senators, race baiters, an unfair caucus system, and the entire MSM……….not to mention BO’s dirty tricks. He knew he had to get Hillary (and with her Bill on his team) as she is showing today how ignorant he is compared to her wealth of intellect…..Bill must be beyond pissed he is having to play nice to the fraud BO…but his team, unlike hers, knew how to win at any cost.

  81. In some ways, HRC may be better equipped to address violence and discrimintatiin against women as SOS.

    Tingle-butt said her message about women will spread across the world.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if a$$wipes like him finally got it and the b@stards in this country were finally forced to recognize it starting with BM?

  82. He pontificated too long as usual , and tried to illicit answers to questions on Natl security which she obviously can not answer at this time…he is sooooooo jealous it is obvious.

  83. What an amazing performance!

    Sen. Murkowski asks Hillary about Arctic problems and she rattles off names and dates and talks about cruise ships now going to Point Barrow or someplace, “the northernmost point in America”.

    She talked to each senator about their pet interests and was able to recite their records and legislation on relevant issues. This lady does her homework.

    North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Russia, Serbia energy, nuclear proliferation, women’s rights, AIDS, violence against women, Helsinki accords, and Latin America are just some of the topics she taked about with specificity.

    Nobody tripped her, and she never said, “I’ll look into that and let you know”. She even knew about a report issued last Friday. I can only say one thing about her testimony:

    WOW!

  84. Shorttermer

    I think part of it is the placement of the lights…think that part of it is her own lower lids are puffy and casting shadows…eye bags do that. And the darkness almost disappears when she turns her head sharply to the left.

    More importantly, is anyone else AMAZED at the issues and responsibilities that are the purview of the SoS ? !!!

  85. BTW, Hillary is not the first supremely qualified person not to become president, and she won’t be the last. It’s just too bad competence isn’t the No. 1 priority for enough voters.

  86. Some people disrupting after session ended chanting “Cease Fire for “Gazza”….Where were they when over 8k rockets were being lobbed at Israeli citizens the past few yrs….always a double standard as Muslims kill each everyday, but when Jews defend themselves, it is a war crime…Hillary won’t buy into that crap imo..

  87. BTW, Hillary is not the first supremely qualified person not to become president, and she won’t be the last. It’s just too bad competence isn’t the No. 1 priority for enough voters.
    ———————————
    Paula: here are my thoughts on the matter:

    1. first, the voters wanted Hillary. She won the popular vote in the primary and she won the popular vote in the general election based on exit polling sampling–even after she withdrew and supported obama. The people are not the problem.

    2. second, the elites did not want Hillary because she is a woman, she is married to Bill and she would not be their puppet. Instead she would do what was right for the people and the elites did not want that. NAFTA is a perfect case in point. So they attacked her through the media and within the party. Cowardly colleagues succumbed to threats and inducements.

    3. third, she may yet become President. If Obama fails, as I believe he will, based on his lack of experience, the intractible problems he is facing and his won emotional make-up, who else is there that could credibly lead this nation forward. She will support him as best she can, but nothing can prevent him from falling on his own sword if that is indeed what happens.

    4. fourth, today Hillary showed the country and more importantly the world that she is ready to lead on day 1. It is hard to draw any other conclusion than that from what we all witnessed today.

Comments are closed.