Well not really, but you’d think so reading the news this morning.
This is quite a bit different than what Obama was saying a few days ago, isn’t it?
What’s changed? Well, he signed all of his bail outs and pay offs. He doesn’t need a crisis anymore. Well, until next year.
The Washington Post in their editorial this morning, surprisingly, take up the issue of what a poor choice Charles Freeman was for the Obama Administration’s National Intelligence Council.
A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company.
They also point out that none of this was allowed into the light until Congress started asking questions and now suddenly, everyone thinks he’s a bit of a nutcase. From his emailed statement yesterday, according to Walter Pincus;
“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East,” Freeman wrote.
Referring to what he called “the Israel Lobby,” he added: “The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views.” One result of this, he said, is “the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.”
Yeah, someone is keeping the Arabs from advancing their opinions. Like in the video I took earlier this year of the poor Palestinian supporters being oppressed by the Jew lobby known as Free Republic;
And in this video I took earlier this year in which a Jewish counter-protester struck an Arab protester’s fist with his face;
The Post editorial concludes;
What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence…The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.
The same reason that the obama Administration said they were going to reduce earmarks and then didn’t – they’re still campaigning and they don’t figure that the rhetoric needs to match their actions.
I’ve always hated that phrase for all the years I spent in government. It seemed to perpetuate a myth that all government workers were half-assed goof-offs.
Well, welcome to the Executive Office of the President version;
Just Monday, I was getting email from my BFFs telling me to fight for this spending bill, now Obama is hiding in a closet in the Oval Office signing the damn thing in the dark. WTF, over?
I wonder what it’s like to be so empty of principles and direction.
On Monday, COB6 wrote about the absurd plan of the Obama Administration to negotiate with the Taliban. Well, not one to let an opportunity to beclown himself slip by, Joe Biden, the smartest man to ever come out of Scranton makes up his own facts and statistics (The Washington Times);
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Tuesday that 70 percent of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought, and said the United States likely will try this approach.
Mr. Biden, in Belgium to discuss Afghanistan with NATO officials in advance of next month’s summit, said that he did not know what kind of concessions Taliban members might be willing to make, and said that the Afghan government would have to initiate and approve of any such talks.
“But I do think it is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state,” Mr. Biden said.
It seems to me that just by the simple fact that Joe is calling them “mercenaries” pretty much precludes any chance of negotiation. Mercenaries, by definition, have no loyalties to a government or land beyond the chance for personal enrichment – why would they want to “participate in a secure and stable Afghan state”? And where does he get the 70% number?
Unless the Obama Administration plans on paying off these mercenaries (like Clinton did to the Haitian generals), I don’t see any room for negotiation. And paying off terrorists always seems to work so well, for nations who do that – like Malaysia which has conceded everything to Islamic terrorists and still gets bombs and beheadings nearly every day. Islamic extremists have proved themselves to be such rational actors.
My regular readers might remember that back in January, I wrote that the Democrats were coming for veterans’ earned benefits at this post;
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows why some military retirees and veterans could face higher out-of-pocket costs if the Obama administration and Congress take bold moves to reform the U.S. health system and to make federal health programs more efficient.
Among 115 “options” presented, though not endorsed, in the CBO report, several focus on raising Tricare out-of-pocket costs for retirees and one targets families. Others would tighten access to VA hospitals and clinics, or raise VA health fees, for veterans with no service-connected conditions.
Well, making one of my countless daily stops at Blackfive, I see that they’ve started dropping hints that it’s coming. By “they” I mean General Black Beret himself;
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance, but was told by lawmakers that it would be “dead on arrival” if sent to Congress.
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama opposing the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration. The groups also noticed an increase in “third-party collections” estimated in the 2010 budget proposal—something they said could only be achieved if the VA started billing for service-related injuries.
Personally, I’d like to see the list of veterans groups that wrote letters to Obama. In February I warned about more chatter from the CBO;
J. Michael Gilmore, assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified that by increasing fees for military health care and restructuring pay raises, the Pentagon could save about $111 billion between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2026.
The House Budget Committee’s ranking Republican, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, agreed that personnel costs were a problem. “DoD’s health care spending is increasing at an unsustainable rate,” he said.
And back in December, John Murtha was making noise about cutting health care expenses, too;
But he said the military could find savings by reforming its healthcare system, addressing military compensation, and reducing operations and maintenance costs.
But it’s inevitable at this point – they can’t afford to provide health care they promised to veterans but they want to give health care to everyone. Democrats know that national health care is futile, yet they’re going to force the square peg into the round hole any-damn-way. And guess who gets to take it in the ass first.
Veterans and the military always take it in the ass for the Democrats – and then a Republican comes along, tries to rebuild the system, and the liberals cry about “massive defense spending”. And then when the clowns get back in charge, they begin dismantling the military again. Those goofballs who voted for Obama are going to begin to wish for Bush to be back. Well, not the ones who didn’t get the benefits any way.
Yeah, if Bush had made noises about cutting the VA they’d be screaming from the rooftops – but this gets a little blurb in the back water pages of CNN. I wonder how some of those VSOs who were “excited” about Shinseki are feeling now. But those of us with memories beyond last week know it was inevitable that Shinseki was going to screw us to the wall.
Christina Bellantoni of the Washington Times interviewed Howard Dean about the President’s health care program. Of course, Howard Dean took the opportunity to belittle and threaten Republican opponents:
Mr. Dean said “Democrats can’t cave” on Mr. Obama’s plan, which he called “perfect.”
“Not every Republican is a right-wing ideologue,” Mr. Dean said in an interview Monday.
“They called Medicare socialized medicine,” he said. “If they want to filibuster this to death, be my guest and let’s see how they do in 2010.”
Yeah, who do they think they are to call socialized medicine by that name? It’s working Americans paying for health care for Americans who for some reason or another don’t pay for their own health care. What else would it be called?
And “perfect”? How is anything perfect? That statement alone should make his intentions suspect in the minds of most Americans.
The Dean makes an even more absurd statement:
He said Medicare for all would be a good solution since “people like it,” and “it works.”
“It’s ridiculous to say care would be inferior,” said Mr. Dean, who was a family practice physician in Vermont and later the state’s governor. “It’s perfectly good for the millions and millions of people over 65 in this country.”
Yeah, he should ask people over 65 in this country how they like Medicare. I did. I asked my mother who is 73 years old and her husband who is eighty what she thinks of it. She says she couldn’t afford the Medicare Part B that the government tried to shove down her throat, so she found a private supplement that is cheaper and more flexible. See, she contributed her whole life to Medicare, and then when it came time to use it, she had to pay more. And in order to afford what the government had told her would be free, she had to turn to private insurance so they could continue to live on the sparse income they get from Social Security.
I get my health care from the Army – I earned it, but it’s still government health care. Bill Clinton decided to save money on military health care and began charging us for what we’d been told would be free while we were earning the right to it – fulfilling our end of the bargain. Even now, Congress is discussing whether they want to put caps on our health care, raise our co-pays and being more selective about who gets to participate. Active duty service members used to get dental treatment free, until Congress changed their collective mind and forced an inadequate, expensive dental insurance on families.
Those are the two heath care programs that Congress administrates now – when costs exceed their projections (read that campaign promises) they get to change their minds. And it’s difficult to plan for your future when you’re trying to hit a moving target.
Dean goes on about “Baby College” which is a program which “encourages” parents to stay involved in their young children’s lives;
The “Baby College” idea encourages poor families to attend parenting groups to learn basic skills like reading to children, keeping fathers engaged and in some cases offering adult literacy courses.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’ll be “encouraged”. We know how the government “encourages” us to pay taxes. After poor participation, there’ll be an enforcement policy, and an agency to administer enforcement. Then it’ll be perfect.
My latest email from my newest BFFs at Organizing for America tells me to gird my loins for battle against…well…someone. I don’t don’t who I’m fighting, but I need to be ready to fight;
Maybe it’s the oligarchy…no wait that’s Chavez – oh, yeah, the “the special interests and old ways of Washington”. I wonder which special interest I should whup up on first…ACORN or the lawyers.
But wait. Obama is claiming this budget as his own? That’s what the email says. What did Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget tell CNN yesterday?
He argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.
“This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game,” Orszag said. “Next year we’re going to be the starting pitcher, and the game’s going to be completely different.”
Are we supposed to be supporting a Bush spending bill? Really? It’s not Obama’s like they told me in the email? I don’t thin I want to fight anymore until I find who I’m fighting for. Geez, ya know maybe I ought to screen capture that CNN story in case it disappears;
So in order to come down on both sides of this issue, Obama alternately blames Bush for the spending bill and tells his mindless drones to get ready to fight for Obama’s bill.
With their willing accomplices in the press running interference for them, the Democrats are trying their hand at changing the public’s perception of earmarks. Last year, campaigning Senator Obama said earmarks are bad (CNN link);
“We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project,” Obama’s statement said.
“The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,” the statement added.
But the Democrats in the Senate this year, are doing their best to convince voters that earmarks are good. Senator Dick Durbin (The Washington Times link);
“That there is something inherently evil, wicked or criminal or wrong with [earmarks], it’s just not the case,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, noting that he earmarked millions of dollars in the pending omnibus spending bill for what he said were worthy projects in his home state.
Mr. Durbin said lawmakers’ pet projects are listed in the bill and exposed to public scrutiny, and that members of Congress know how to best spend taxpayer dollars in their districts and states.
“Otherwise, what happens? We give the money to the agency downtown and they decide where to spend it,” Mr. Durbin said on the Senate floor. “It isn’t as if the money won’t be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable.”
See? You legislators know best how to spend your tax money (or, more accurately, the money from some other taxpayer across the country from you). Even government bureaucrats don’t know how to spend your money like a Senator knows how to spend your money. That’s why he’s your Senator.
But Durbin isn’t the only Senator who thinks earmarks are necessary – Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid think so, too;
The refrain has been the same from other top Democrats, whether from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Besides touting the merits of earmarks, these Democrats balked at Mr. Obama’s announcement last week of a plan to reel in pork-barrel spending.
Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Hoyer made clear that they thought it was out of Mr. Obama’s constitutional jurisdiction.
What does Nancy Pelosi think of earmarks?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, last week defended earmarks as an “appropriate function” of Congress, even as she pledged to work with the White House to cut the number and increase transparency – but only after passage of the omnibus bill.
“The idea is lower number, more transparency, total accountability,” Mrs. Pelosi said.
We’ll lower the number of earmarks – well, after this year. In other words, they’re hoping (and planning on) the media forgets that they said that next year. The Obama Administration is taking the same position – wait’ll next year (CNN link);
[Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget] argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.
“This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game,” Orszag said. “Next year we’re going to be the starting pitcher, and the game’s going to be completely different.”
Obama argues that he was saddled with this spending bill because the Bush Administration didn’t get a spending bill through Congress last year – that’s because Democrats wouldn’t take it up and put it off until this year. Sounds like he needs to sit down and talk with the children in his party. Unless, of course, he enjoys breaking a new campaign promise every week.