Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Friday, November 16, 2012
Benghazi - Some Truths
OK my friend, this will be a bit long but I expect that you would want a
fair response. You have presented a poorly veiled allegation about
deception regarding the administration's public statements about the
9/11/12 attack on the Consulate in Benghazi. [Among others your email of 11/14] In this you echo the
statements of John McCain and assorted
denizens from the depths of the Far Right. One Republican Congressman
explicitly called the president a liar. Again, while attempting to
bring myself back to the Center, I am pushed back to the Left by what
appear clear to me as distortions, fabrications and political garbage.
But let's go with McCain.
(1) McCain begins his argument by addressing the public comments of UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Specifically:
"There is no doubt five days later what this attack was and for — look, I was on "Face the Nation" that Sunday. Right after her came the president of the Libyan National Assembly who said this was al-Qaeda. Everybody knew that. So she went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html
(2) McCain has also stated that Rice had used talking points from the White House and not the CIA as the basis of her public comments clearly suggesting political manipulation from the White House. [see "On the Record" site below] However, he is again wrong.
"In a closed-door session with the House Intelligence committee, Mike Morell [Ceputy CIA Director] said Rice was provided with an unclassified version of events at the U.S. mission in Benghazi ... The assessment concluded that a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video had evolved into an attack on the American consulate, a description that Rice presented in television interviews the Sunday morning after the attack." "Five days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described what precipitated the deadly incident based on initial intelligence that later proved incorrect, the deputy CIA director told Congress on Thursday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/susan-rice-libya_n_2141392.html
These were the CIA talking points prepared on Sept. 15:
(3) In his interview "On the Record on Fox" on November 14th McCain dismissed earlier Republican matters that he felt comparable in some way saying "Watergate was about a break in. Iran-Contra was about a shipment of arms." This statement doesn't merit discussion. But, then McCain went on to specify the exact times of the "deceptive," "false" and, certainly, "evil" fabric of lies by the administration. Only the last dated September 25th merits any comment.
"Could I just remind you real quick -- September 21, in the Rose Garden, he said it was, Quote, "acts of terror". That same night, he said to Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes," its too early to know exactly how this came about. On September 20th, we're still doing an investigation. September 24th, on "The View," we're still doing an investigation. And then before the United Nations on September 25th, "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/11/15/mccain-obama-were-not-picking-anybody-we-want-answers-and-buck-stops-your-desk-mr-preside
Going back to the text of the President's speech at the UN, if you care, you will find that the president addressed the Benghazi attack at the beginning of the speech. Later, after raising other matters, the president spoke of the Arab Spring and the difficulty of transitioning to democracy. And he said then the comment extracted by McCain:
"In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/did-obama-stand-up-for-a-free-society-at-the-un0.html
In the two weeks immediately preceding the president's speech protests over the film broke out in nearly 20 countries. The context of the comment, while chronologically and indirectly including the Benghazi attack, is substantially directed at the broader issue of "tolerate freedom for others."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"There is no doubt five days later what this attack was and for — look, I was on "Face the Nation" that Sunday. Right after her came the president of the Libyan National Assembly who said this was al-Qaeda. Everybody knew that. So she went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.”
— Sen. John McCain on "Fox and Friends," Nov. 14, 2012
“When she presented the case absolutely this was a flash
mob. Look at the reruns because I happened to have been there that
morning.... The casual observer knew there was no demonstration. There
was no demonstration, so you couldn't have known that to start with.”
— McCain, on “CBS This Morning,” Nov. 14
So let's look at the statement that McCain explicitly referred to as the basis and starting point of the deception.
So let's look at the statement that McCain explicitly referred to as the basis and starting point of the deception.
"[O]n CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sept. 16. [Ambassador Rice]
spoke just after the president of the Libyan National Assembly said
there is “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”
BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador — our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he [the Libyan president of the National Assembly] says that this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you had been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?
SUSAN RICE: Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI that has begun.
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there yet.
RICE : They are not on the ground yet but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation.
So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what — it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.
But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER : Do you agree or disagree with him that al-Qaeda had some part in this?
RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."
(2) McCain has also stated that Rice had used talking points from the White House and not the CIA as the basis of her public comments clearly suggesting political manipulation from the White House. [see "On the Record" site below] However, he is again wrong.
"In a closed-door session with the House Intelligence committee, Mike Morell [Ceputy CIA Director] said Rice was provided with an unclassified version of events at the U.S. mission in Benghazi ... The assessment concluded that a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video had evolved into an attack on the American consulate, a description that Rice presented in television interviews the Sunday morning after the attack." "Five days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described what precipitated the deadly incident based on initial intelligence that later proved incorrect, the deputy CIA director told Congress on Thursday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/susan-rice-libya_n_2141392.html
These were the CIA talking points prepared on Sept. 15:
“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
(3) In his interview "On the Record on Fox" on November 14th McCain dismissed earlier Republican matters that he felt comparable in some way saying "Watergate was about a break in. Iran-Contra was about a shipment of arms." This statement doesn't merit discussion. But, then McCain went on to specify the exact times of the "deceptive," "false" and, certainly, "evil" fabric of lies by the administration. Only the last dated September 25th merits any comment.
"Could I just remind you real quick -- September 21, in the Rose Garden, he said it was, Quote, "acts of terror". That same night, he said to Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes," its too early to know exactly how this came about. On September 20th, we're still doing an investigation. September 24th, on "The View," we're still doing an investigation. And then before the United Nations on September 25th, "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/11/15/mccain-obama-were-not-picking-anybody-we-want-answers-and-buck-stops-your-desk-mr-preside
Going back to the text of the President's speech at the UN, if you care, you will find that the president addressed the Benghazi attack at the beginning of the speech. Later, after raising other matters, the president spoke of the Arab Spring and the difficulty of transitioning to democracy. And he said then the comment extracted by McCain:
"In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/did-obama-stand-up-for-a-free-society-at-the-un0.html
In the two weeks immediately preceding the president's speech protests over the film broke out in nearly 20 countries. The context of the comment, while chronologically and indirectly including the Benghazi attack, is substantially directed at the broader issue of "tolerate freedom for others."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Secret Service in Columbia
Having worked for years closely with Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service, I am shocked at recent reported events. Each of the many Special Agents with whom I worked was a dedicated law enforcement officer of the highest level of trust and integrity. When assigned to either extended or temporary details protecting the president they were unwaveringly dedicated to the task and righteously proud of the responsibility they held in trust.
Agents of the U.S. Secret Service are now alleged to have participated in outrageous conduct while on assignment to protect President Obama. The accomplishment of any task is affected by the conscious and unconscious attitude of the actor toward the objective of the task. Could it be that the incessant, vitriolic, disdainful rhetoric directed personally at this president creating, as it has, its own sub-culture has infected, consciously or unconsciously, even sworn agents within the Secret Service? I sincerely hope that we have men and women of stronger character now assuming the responsibilities of the Secret Service.
Agents of the U.S. Secret Service are now alleged to have participated in outrageous conduct while on assignment to protect President Obama. The accomplishment of any task is affected by the conscious and unconscious attitude of the actor toward the objective of the task. Could it be that the incessant, vitriolic, disdainful rhetoric directed personally at this president creating, as it has, its own sub-culture has infected, consciously or unconsciously, even sworn agents within the Secret Service? I sincerely hope that we have men and women of stronger character now assuming the responsibilities of the Secret Service.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Success in Libya
I find it interesting that as President Obama today announced the killing of Gaddafi the President said that it was accomplished "without putting U. S. service members on the ground...." As I suggested some time ago, it seems to me that the statement does not preclude the probability that the CIA's "silent boots" had been a part of the successful effort. Well done.
By the way, I think it is disgraceful the way elected Republican leaders still denigrate the President for his strategic handling of what is a successful revolution in Libya. The President either did too little or too much, acted too late or acted too indirectly or too directly. In the midst of his criticism of the President and while emphatically congratulating England and France, Senator McCain emphasized in an afterthought how "grateful Libyans are" now toward the United States and how we should leverage that fact. Now, just why would they be so grateful to the U.S. if the strategy was wrong.
I suggest to the Republicans that, putting political posturing aside, and standing openly with the President to accept the Libyan appreciation jointly with NATO would be a bold statement to the world and would kick start the leveraging in Libya and greater Africa. After all, it was Congressional funding and Presidential direction that brought this about.
Foreign affairs are not going to be a major aspect of the 2012 election. It will of course be the economy. Accordingly, the denigration of the President now is only harmful to the future prospects of our country overseas and baseless in the internal political struggle. Putting Party loyalty and objectives aside and standing as Americans is probably too much to ask of those within the conservative juggernaut.
By the way, I think it is disgraceful the way elected Republican leaders still denigrate the President for his strategic handling of what is a successful revolution in Libya. The President either did too little or too much, acted too late or acted too indirectly or too directly. In the midst of his criticism of the President and while emphatically congratulating England and France, Senator McCain emphasized in an afterthought how "grateful Libyans are" now toward the United States and how we should leverage that fact. Now, just why would they be so grateful to the U.S. if the strategy was wrong.
I suggest to the Republicans that, putting political posturing aside, and standing openly with the President to accept the Libyan appreciation jointly with NATO would be a bold statement to the world and would kick start the leveraging in Libya and greater Africa. After all, it was Congressional funding and Presidential direction that brought this about.
Foreign affairs are not going to be a major aspect of the 2012 election. It will of course be the economy. Accordingly, the denigration of the President now is only harmful to the future prospects of our country overseas and baseless in the internal political struggle. Putting Party loyalty and objectives aside and standing as Americans is probably too much to ask of those within the conservative juggernaut.
Friday, September 30, 2011
A Rush to Judgment
The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.
A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.
On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.
I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.
In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.
Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.
A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.
On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.
I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.
In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.
Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
You See Surrender. I See Necessity.
A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
General McChrystal Disserves
The conduct of General McChrystal and his staff, for whom he bears full responsibility, is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of any officer in the United States Army. He should be relieved of his command immediately. However, to dwell further on McChrystal is to further feed an arrogance that was at the core of the conduct. General McChrystal, by the reported conduct, has created a situation that may undercut the mission of our forces in Afghanistan and thereby devalue the gains made through the suffering and deaths of our men and women. The impatience of an American people distracted from the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan will only be enflamed by the appearances, if not actualities, of disunity at the highest levels of our efforts. The General and his staff have dishonored themselves and the men and women valiantly serving in that theater of war.
The reported conduct does not reflect on nor diminish the years of extraordinary service and personal sacrifice he has shown in the performance of duty. The President could still draw upon McChrystal’s experience and military insights by ordering him to work at the direction of his replacement in a staff position outside the operational area. I recognize the inherent difficulties of such an arrangement but, the mission being paramount, the egos will just have to suck it up or resign.
The reported conduct does not reflect on nor diminish the years of extraordinary service and personal sacrifice he has shown in the performance of duty. The President could still draw upon McChrystal’s experience and military insights by ordering him to work at the direction of his replacement in a staff position outside the operational area. I recognize the inherent difficulties of such an arrangement but, the mission being paramount, the egos will just have to suck it up or resign.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Yesterday's News
Day One – Hour One: Cable news reports “CHICAGO ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION TO HOST 2016 OLYMPICS”
Daniel Shore, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite resurrected and to report for makeup prior to anticipated “News Specials” to air continuously over the next week analyzing the profound effects of President's failure.
All network and cable news directors order bureaus and affiliates to prominently display photo of President Obama during all programming on the issue. Fox News adds display of “Unbelievably Devastating Failure for Obama” with photos.
“Country in shock!” CNN Reports. Fox attempts to revive Limbaugh though able to quote his exhaling as “I knew it. I said it. The President has destroyed Chicago and next will be Moline!”
White House sources reveal the President on his way to daughter’s classroom to begin extended reading of Dr. Seuss prior to official announcement. Vice- President Biden seen standing on lawn waiting for someone to listen to him.
Day One – Hour Two: Congressional Budget Office reports ten billion dollar projected increase in Medicare payments due to epidemic of depression among elderly couch potatoes .
Department of Transportation projects substantial revenue loss to domestic airlines due to cancellation of reservations from hookers across the country. Bailout money discussed in congressional offices (for hooker “associates” of congressmen not airlines).
Mexican border crossing “guides” in protest along the border reported to have hired a prominent New York lawyer to sue the city of Chicago due to substantial decrease in labor requirements. At least two Columbian drug cartels to join suit alleging decreased cocaine demand.
Day One – Hour Three: Fox still unable to revive Limbaugh.
Spokesperson for Republican Party contends President incompetent. “How can we trust him on health insurance when he fails at something so simple?”
Austin Times/Fox News Poll just released confirms President’s approval rating drops to single digits.
Senator John Kerry issues a statement saying he plans to throw his Chicago Bears muffler over some, as yet unchosen, fence in protest. Jane Fonda reported confused.
Senator Mitch McConnell calls for the President's resignation and is quoted as saying "Hell, he wasn't legal anyhow."
Day One – Hour Four: Mayor Daley of Chicago attempts to call Mafia political backers but prison regulations preclude. Democrat precinct captains issued “Plan F’em” and begin arming the two hundred thousand no-show city employees in anticipation of invasion of winning city. Teamsters join effort.
O’Reilly and Hannity seen dancing naked together in Central Park. Fox News in turmoil when unable to locate key to Glen Beck’s cage.
White House cancels all meetings scheduled with anyone who had visited Chicago in last three years. Secret Service given classified instructions regarding Mayor Daley of Chicago.
Fox broadcasts interview with Republican John Boehner who charges the President “Never wanted America to win!” Boehner says he cannot dismiss allegations the President actually working for Muslim country in Olympic selection.
Mid Day – One: Rio announced the winner of 2016 Olympics - White House issues statement “Yeah, like they needed another reason to party!” White House source says firing of Acorn in recent weeks destroyed any chance for “Chicago-style” victory.
Day Thirty: Cable News interest in Olympics issue falls and all revert back to Michael Jackson stories.
Daniel Shore, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite resurrected and to report for makeup prior to anticipated “News Specials” to air continuously over the next week analyzing the profound effects of President's failure.
All network and cable news directors order bureaus and affiliates to prominently display photo of President Obama during all programming on the issue. Fox News adds display of “Unbelievably Devastating Failure for Obama” with photos.
“Country in shock!” CNN Reports. Fox attempts to revive Limbaugh though able to quote his exhaling as “I knew it. I said it. The President has destroyed Chicago and next will be Moline!”
White House sources reveal the President on his way to daughter’s classroom to begin extended reading of Dr. Seuss prior to official announcement. Vice- President Biden seen standing on lawn waiting for someone to listen to him.
Day One – Hour Two: Congressional Budget Office reports ten billion dollar projected increase in Medicare payments due to epidemic of depression among elderly couch potatoes .
Department of Transportation projects substantial revenue loss to domestic airlines due to cancellation of reservations from hookers across the country. Bailout money discussed in congressional offices (for hooker “associates” of congressmen not airlines).
Mexican border crossing “guides” in protest along the border reported to have hired a prominent New York lawyer to sue the city of Chicago due to substantial decrease in labor requirements. At least two Columbian drug cartels to join suit alleging decreased cocaine demand.
Day One – Hour Three: Fox still unable to revive Limbaugh.
Spokesperson for Republican Party contends President incompetent. “How can we trust him on health insurance when he fails at something so simple?”
Austin Times/Fox News Poll just released confirms President’s approval rating drops to single digits.
Senator John Kerry issues a statement saying he plans to throw his Chicago Bears muffler over some, as yet unchosen, fence in protest. Jane Fonda reported confused.
Senator Mitch McConnell calls for the President's resignation and is quoted as saying "Hell, he wasn't legal anyhow."
Day One – Hour Four: Mayor Daley of Chicago attempts to call Mafia political backers but prison regulations preclude. Democrat precinct captains issued “Plan F’em” and begin arming the two hundred thousand no-show city employees in anticipation of invasion of winning city. Teamsters join effort.
O’Reilly and Hannity seen dancing naked together in Central Park. Fox News in turmoil when unable to locate key to Glen Beck’s cage.
White House cancels all meetings scheduled with anyone who had visited Chicago in last three years. Secret Service given classified instructions regarding Mayor Daley of Chicago.
Fox broadcasts interview with Republican John Boehner who charges the President “Never wanted America to win!” Boehner says he cannot dismiss allegations the President actually working for Muslim country in Olympic selection.
Mid Day – One: Rio announced the winner of 2016 Olympics - White House issues statement “Yeah, like they needed another reason to party!” White House source says firing of Acorn in recent weeks destroyed any chance for “Chicago-style” victory.
Day Thirty: Cable News interest in Olympics issue falls and all revert back to Michael Jackson stories.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Rally by Any Other Name
A friend writes from his rally experience in Santa Fe: " Contrary to media reports, it was not an anti-Obama rally. It was overwhelmingly attended by average folks concerned about the runaway deficits and the growth of government."
I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.
I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.
The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.
I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.
I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.
The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Random Thoughts
Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.
Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.
Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Let's Get Serious
I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.
A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?
The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.
A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?
The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Stimulus and Support for the Presidency
Senator Lindsey Graham is being interviewed on a Fox News program as I write this. He charges that the President has “failed” and has lost an opportunity to bring the country together by going forward with a recovery bill that could only gain the support of three Republican senators. The senator’s commentary directly called into question the competence of the President to lead the country. Apparently this senator speaks for the entrenched 41 Republican senators who reject a compromise worked out in joint sessions today. Three Republicans, according to media reports, will vote with the Democratic majority to pass the compromise.
The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.
We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.
The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.
The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.
We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.
The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)