Blog @ MoreWhat.com

It seems every time Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks in public he, perhaps unknowingly, confirms what many are concerned about is reasonable. Except for those who know or believe they stand to gain by out of control spending and debt caused by the US government (the White House and Congress) the rest of us see the situation as dangerous. Here is some of Geithner’s latest nonsensical economics concept.

Geithner made the promise Wednesday in a speech to business leaders and government officials in Washington. He said the administration’s fiscal and monetary actions to address the crisis are “temporary” and must be undone once a recovery is firmly in place.

“With this in mind, this administration has presented a budget plan that charts a path to achieving to sustainable budget deficits in the medium term, so that recovery is not impaired by concerns about excessive government borrowing in the future,” said Geithner. “We are designing our financial programs so that we can reverse them as soon as practical, and avoid the risks that come with sustained government intervention in the financial system.”

With a $3.5 trillion dollar budget and a CBO projection that the 2009 record high deficit will be $1.8 trillion dollars how can he believe this can be undone or reversed? One could reasonably conclude the Treasury Secretary does not have a clue given his inability to pay taxes properly and expecting everyone to believe it was a simple error or oversight after he had been told by his ‘employer’ that some of the money given to him was to go directly to the IRS which is now under his direction.

That the GOP is howling about all that is wrong with the current majority party’s spending craze is another laughable moment since they share equally in the insanity of spending and borrowing for some years now. The only reason their criticism is more than what liberals refer to as the party of ‘no’ rests with the fact they are the only elected representatives available with any interest in opposing more spending and debt. It may be seem disingenuous but it is all citizens have right now aside from the additional fact that the ‘ruling party’ inherits the power and more importantly the blame for what goes wrong. If liberals want to maintain it is fair to bash Bush because he was the President then they need to understand the same applies when their liberal pick enters the White House and his party controls Congress.

Back to Geithner

“The American people and investors need to understand that we will have the will and commitment as a country to go back to the point where we are living within our means, and that is going to require very substantial adjustments to bring our resources and expenditures more into balance,” he said.

Another absolutely mind-numbing preposterous statement from the tax cheat who became Secretary of the Treasury. First, he states the ‘we’ have to understand that ‘we’ have the ‘will and commitment’ to live within our means. And second, if that is to require bringing finances ‘more into balance’ how does he then justify what they are doing now? Again, either those opposing his confirmation were right and he is an idiot or he thinks you are.

It is a classic political sham. Like many who get elected and immediately begin promoting their agenda by stating success will come in their ‘next’ term Geithner promotes the administration’s agenda by stating one day we have to do more of what put us into this mess and then another day claims it will all work out later. That is the political version of sustainability. Blame others for anything that is wrong. Claim that what you are doing will solve what is wrong. And always promise the results will occur after your next election. When more failure results, repeat the process, blame, claim and promise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

C’mon, “that is just Joe being Joe”. And that’s the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you recall use of the phrase ‘Manchurian candidate’ in current American politics you may be old enough to remember watching the 1962 film. But you may be a little foggy on the details after many years if you actually went to a theatre to view it in the sixties.

That was the initial reason for this post along with its current use in politics and the search began. After one pass in the Google main search engine page the phrase was entered in the news search. The first result featured an LA Times review of the movie apparently being shown at a local venue. The paper mentions Richard Condon as author of the book by of course the same name and its 1959 debut. Since the phrase is getting some attention it seems only fair to give credit to the book’s author.

It was no big surprise that the second result put the phrase into current political context. An excerpt from a HuffPo item titled ‘Irresponsible Vitriol in the Media’ from April 1, 2009 indicates Bloomberg ‘asserting’ Obama is ‘giving us a war on business’ and ‘legislat[ing] like a Manchurian Candidate.’

That led to actually clicking on a result that read like a common liberal rant expressing discontent with ‘deranged comments on their blogs’ and ‘Manchurian candidate.’

TPM
my TPM BLOG
March 25, 2009, 2:46PM
acanuck

Jokes about Obama’s “dependence” on his teleprompter have been all over the right-wing media and blogosphere for months: Fox, Politico, Townhall, Drudge and now AP … the list is shockingly long. Google “obama teleprompter” and make your own. There’s even a link to yet another bogus teleprompter story on the TPM main page today.

Two things to be said about the item above. The minor distraction of referring to someone’s actions as ’stupider’ rather than ‘more stupid’ as a superior grammatical choice albeit no improvement in style. And including Politico in a set of sources described as right wing media and blogosphere. Fox, Townhall and Drudge could be rated as probably, certainly and perhaps, respectively and respectfully. But AP and Politico being right wing?

The TPM blog item led to the following.

Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter: Letterman Takes On Obama Critics (VIDEO)
Huffington Post - Alex Leo
March 24, 2009 11:13 AM

Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:

“Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.”

They make an interesting point, why would a president want to be prepared and careful about what he says? The guy who had the job for the last eight years didn’t need no stinkin’ teleprompter!

This HuffPo piece offers a video along with their apparent agreement with the other item suggesting disdain over Politico. The video uses David Letterman and one of his comedy vids to support their argument to accept Obama’s dependence on a teleprompter as a good thing.

Nothing against Letterman but is that really the source you want to select to make a serious point? BTW, the vid is funny as it presents a ’serious’ Obama speaking in front of the camera versus a speaking gaffe by former President George W Bush. It’s also funny, but not in the humorous meaning, they don’t present a serious vid of Bush giving a prepared speech versus a speaking gaffe by Obama like dissin’ special olympics on a late night talk show when he was not likely using his favorite teleprompter. (and to liberals who will contest this, yes, Bush 43 gave plenty of serious speeches without gaffes)

Another contrast to offer is George Bush (43) even made self-deprecating remarks about his lack of public speaking prowess while the media, politicians and other observers have elevated Obama’s communication skills to the level of JFK. CBS News has a headline ‘Obama’s oratory grabbing the spotlight.’ The LA Times has ‘the power of Obama’s oratory.’ Two examples of the abundance of media love for everything Obama. So the left should understand if you are going to make a claim there will be challenges. You could equate Obama oratory by teleprompter to athletes using performance enhancing drugs to artificially improve their results.

This post was initially intended to present various arguments for the media being left wing or right wing and examples of how some draw their conclusions. While a bit of that was suggested the rest must wait for another post as the Obama yeah and Bush naw items along with silly responses to Manchurian candidates and teleprompters dominated this ’search’ journey.

But perhaps the central point to a left/right media analysis is suggested in results from a search engine inquiry using each of the following: ‘left wing politico’ and ‘right wing politico.’ On just one pass there are plenty of results to lean toward a conclusion that regardless of the political stripe of readers their reaction to whether a source is left or right is influenced by whether they agree or disagree with the source.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From a transcript of President Obama’s Friday March 13, 2009 press event with Paul Volcker on the economy the following point was made.

But if we are — if we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we’re going to get through this. And I’m very confident about that.

All right? Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Have a good weekend.

END 1:38 P.M. EDT

In January 2009 after President George W Bush’s last State of the Union Address reports on the event included the President’s statement that economic fundamentals were strong. He was criticized for this appraisal and accused of being out of touch.

Mr Bush also sought to calm Americans’ fears about the troubled economy, while charting a course he hopes will keep him relevant in his final year in office.

He acknowledged that growth was slowing but insisted that the country’s long-term economic fundamentals were sound.

And he prodded Congress to act quickly on a $US150 billion ($169 billion) economic stimulus package laid out out last week.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign after the field was reduced to the two major party nominees Barack Obama attacked John McCain on his insistance the econommic fundamentals were strong.

McCain says economic ‘fundamentals’ strong, Obama attacks

Sep 15, 2008

ORLANDO, Florida (AFP) — John McCain Monday insisted US economic “fundamentals” were strong despite a banking crisis and Wall Street meltdown, prompting a scathing rebuke from his White House foe Barack Obama.

John McCain said the economic fundamentals of the US were strong and Barack Obama pounced. President Bush made a similar statement in his last State of the Union speech and the President’s opposition pounced. This week President Obama states the fundamentals are strong and what happens? Nothing. A scan of news sources suggests most media outlets are saying Obama calls for a return to economic fundamentals. The whole world must be drunk.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another dilemma for President Obama between campaign rhetoric and the realities of his new job. Adding to the difficulties are complaints from the ACLU which may be new territory for Democrats. The promise of transparency meets the need to protect national security when liberals claim to favor everything on the table regardless of consequences. Can the new President resolve these issues by simply saying, ‘I won’, as he has on other occasions?

Under Obama, same stance on rendition suit

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

On Monday, Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a review to make sure government secrecy is invoked only to protect national security and not “to hide from the American people information that they have a right to know.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents five men suing Jeppesen for allegedly flying them to foreign torture chambers, said this case is the new administration’s chance to live up to its promises.

“Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on this important civil liberties issue,” the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, said after the hearing.

Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing

FEBRUARY 10, 2009
By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration backed the Bush administration’s arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning.

The case involves five men who claim U.S. operatives abducted them and sent them to be tortured in other countries. The men are suing a unit of Boeing Co., which they say provided aircraft to the Central Intelligence Agency for the “extraordinary rendition” program. Boeing declined to comment on the case.

Monday, Justice Department lawyers told the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court in San Francisco that the government believes state secrets and national security would be put at risk if the court allows the suit to proceed. That is the same argument the department used under President George W. Bush.

There of course is noise about ‘truth commissions’ and other nonsense which should be difficult to justify if the Obama Administration is supporting policies of the previous administration. But one could guess the liberal argument would be Bush was wrong and should be punished while Obama doing the same thing would be viewed as being done correctly since after all, he is the Messiah.

Before someone feels the urge to complain about this post or the commentary within consider the fact that left, right, center or any other political position these days is failing to bring solutions to fruition. So a few free shots based on this blog’s political leanings are nothing more than relieving frustration. As it sits right now there is more reason to criticize the left than the right given the White House and Congress are mathmatically controlled by Democrats. With Obama’s approval rating falling about 15 points since taking office and the Congressional approval rating still in the tank more criticism will probably follow and not just from this location.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama to CONTINUE Renditions of Terrorists to Torture Countries (Flopping Aces)

Many have been entertained by the shoe throwing incident that occurred during President Bush’s last official visit to Iraq. Regardless of your opinion or impression of the event one has to wonder about the fate of the shoe throwing ‘journalist.’

He is reported below to be in jail awaiting trial. He may be the only one who never laughed about the incident.

The only handy resource for displaying the sculpture in this story is from YouTube and presented below. No assurance for the validity or accuracy, etc., of this video is expressed or implied by this blog or this post’s author.

Shoe Sculpture Honors Iraqi Journalist
By VOA News
30 January 2009

Iraqis are paying tribute to the journalist who threw his shoes at then-President George Bush at a statue dedicated to the incident.

A large bronze sculpture of a shoe, accompanied by an ode to journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi, was unveiled Thursday in Tikrit.

Zaidi gained instant fame during a Baghdad news conference last month, throwing his shoes to express his anger at the U.S.-led invasion of his country. His act inspired thousands across the Middle East to carry shoes in rallies of solidarity.

He is currently in jail awaiting trial.

Tikrit is the hometown of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. After a Baghdad statue of Saddam was toppled in 2003, Iraqis displayed their disgust with him by hitting the sculpture with shoes and slippers.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters

Trackposted to Nuke’s, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, Wingless - Alastair Crooke on Gaza & Hamas - living in the twilight zone!, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

The debate and/or division among opponents and supporters of abortion may never end. That supposition is based partly on the near equal division in US politics demonstrated in the back and forth restoring and rescinding of the Mexico City Policy initiated in the Reagan years and named after the location of a UN conference on population where it was announced.

From the standpoint of ‘rights’ those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions.

About the only thing the two sides agree on is encouraging a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies. Pro-life advocates maintain that better alternatives for unintended pregnancies include abstinence and adoption. Many pro-choice advocates would likely support the notion expressed by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. ‘Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,’ he said. ‘I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

Below is a brief review excerpt from USAID on President Bush restoring the policy in 2001 shortly after taking office. After that is a link to President Obama rescinding the policy shortly after he took office. After President Reagan initiated it in 1984 President Clinton rescinded it in 1993, again, shortly after taking office. The trend is painfully clear.

Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning

“This policy recognizes our country’s long history of providing international health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free and responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children.”

The White House
January 22, 2001

On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services.

President (Obama) rescinds “Mexico City Policy” on Abortion

If one searches data on abortion recurring statistics may shed some light on the problem. A significant percentage of the abortions performed each year are not the patient’s first. As many as one out of five abortions in given years were the patient’s second or third. A not so surprising number of women reported inconsistent use of contraception as the reason for the unintended pregnancy.

Wikipedia history, etc., of Mexico City Policy

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate roll call vote: Taxpayer funding of overseas abortions reinstated (Michelle Malkin) 

The world favors closing the Guantanamo facility.  Well, much of the world favors it.  After urging its closing for years European countries are now realizing the ‘political and security implications’ of releasing detainees.  Aside from the ‘activists’ and defense lawyers calling for the facility’s closure ‘much of the world’ may not be so comfortable with releasing detainees now that it is clear many have returned to terrorist groups.

China called for the return of 17 ‘nationals’ who are Uighurs.  And what exactly is China’s record with their Uighur population?  Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan suggests support for the war on terror will be easier to win if this happens.  While some say situations like the Gitmo story encourage recruitment among terror groups are we to take that information without qualification?  How do you determine how many would join terror groups with or without events like Abu Ghraib and keeping detainees in Gitmo?  And does the reaction to terrorism by the rest of the world really have an impact?  Have those who cowered to terrorism or the threat of it been spared the senseless violence?  If you have a powerful response to terror or a moderate one does it make a difference and who has the data or proof to offer?

‘A number of former Guantanamo detainees said the decision has come too late’ so what does it matter? And then there is the problem of where detainees go.  The second report raises the issue of how successful would countries be in receiving detainees without the threat of further terrorist activity?  After a DoD report on the number of released detainees who returned to terrorist groups and acknowledgment of that by such groups what is the litmus test on detainees?  Is their guilt or innocence to be determined by what they do after release?  How’s that for intelligence?

Yemen says they will get many detainees in the next few months and ‘make sure they do not escape and rejoin terrorist groups.’ That’s reassuring. NOT.  Is this the Obama Administration’s first major blunder in the making?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much of the world is welcoming President Barack Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, but the global response also indicates an awareness of the challenges involved in shutting down the unpopular detention facility.

In Europe, many countries that have been urging closure of the prison for years are now debating whether to take in ex-detainees after they are released - decisions with serious political and security implications.

In Afghanistan, where many of the detainees were captured, President Hamid Karzai said closing Guantanamo will make it easier to win international support for the war against terrorism.

Human rights groups said ordering the prison’s closure is a step in the right direction, but they also are urging the new administration to follow through.

Amnesty International said it “sends an important message to the rest of the world that the USA is now closing a dark chapter in its history.” Human Rights Watch official Jennifer Daskal said, “By shutting down a global symbol of abuse [it] will deprive terrorists of a powerful recruitment tool.”

China Thursday called again for the return of 17 Chinese nationals being held at Guantanamo. The men are Uighurs, a Muslim minority group living in part of northwestern China.

And Cuba called for the closure of the entire U.S. military base at Guantanamo. In an interview with Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency, Cuban President Raul Castro said the base should be shut down and the territory it occupies returned to what he calls its legal owners - the Cuban people.

In Saudi Arabia, the families of some detainees still being held in the prison have welcomed the decision to close it, hoping to be reunited with their relatives. But a number of former Guantanamo detainees said the decision has come too late.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Yemen’s president says his country is preparing to take back 94 Yemeni prisoners from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Yemeni security officials Saturday the U.S. will release the prisoners within the next three months, and promised to make sure they do not escape and rejoin extremists groups.

U.S. President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday to close the controversial facility within one year, but there are questions about what to do with the terrorists suspects still held there.

Earlier this week, two men claiming to be former prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility appeared on a video tape, claiming they had rejoined al-Qaida and are now senior militant officials in Yemen.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry Saturday expressed support for the U.S. decision to shut the center, saying it adds what it called a “much needed moral dimension in dealing with terrorism.”

According to a list compiled by the Washington Post, there are currently six Pakistani nationals being held at Guantanamo. They include top suspects accused of planning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Meantime, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says his government is seeking permission to meet with two Malaysians held at Guantanamo, and to have them serve their sentences in their home country. He also praised the decision to shut the facility.

Some U.S. lawmakers have voiced concerns that shutting Guantanamo may allow some dangerous detainees to be set free.

The U.S. Defense Department says as many as 61 former Guantanamo prisoners have returned to terrorism. On Friday, U.S. security officials confirmed that a man released from the facility in late 2007 has become the deputy leader of al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen.

Mr. Obama has ordered a review of all 245 detainees at the center, to decide how to prosecute those that may have committed crimes.

Every now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.

President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.

The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.

Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.

The community organizer strikes again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin) 

President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.

It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”

The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.

But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.

The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.

The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.

At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.

President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.

The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.

At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.

GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”

Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.

The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.

“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.

Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.

The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.

WASHINGTON — President Bush addresses supporters at the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball here Jan. 20. The president and first lady Laura Bush made the event their first stop on a tour of inaugural galas. The ball, held since 1953, honors recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, and the newly inaugurated president. (Department of Defense photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample)

President thanks veterans for service during inaugural ball

by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service

1/21/2005 - WASHINGTON — President Bush and first lady Laura Bush were greeted with resounding cheers as they made the first stop of their whirlwind tour of inaugural galas here Jan. 20.

At the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball, hundreds of veterans from across the country, along with their wives and families, greeted the president with a resounding show of support.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, stopped in later as they made their way through the inaugural circuit.

Kenneth Stumpf, one of many Medal of Honor recipients who endured tight security inside the hotel to see the president, was particularly happy to be there.

“I spent my entire life in the military, so whoever was the president, that was my commander-in-chief,” he said. “It just so happens I really like this one.”

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. The event started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations.

With applause and cheers often interrupting his comments, the president used his brief appearance to thank veterans for their service.

“They have set a fantastic example for those who wear the uniform today,” he said. “Our veterans who have served all across the world in the cause of freedom, they have done so in a selfless way and for that, this nation is eternally grateful.”

The president also used the occasion to reiterate points made during his inaugural address, speaking on the importance of freedom and saying that United States will succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq.

“We believe in freedom, and we know that free societies will be peaceful societies,” the president said.

He also said that by ending tyranny, the United States “will have fulfilled the obligations of our founding fathers who recognized that every man and woman on the face of the earth should be free.”

With the Joints Chiefs of Staff seated on each side of the podium, the president acknowledged the difficulties being placed on the military.

“We’ve asked hard things of our troops and the families of our troops,” he said. But he cited the progress made in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Think about what has happened in a very short period of time,” he said. “The people of Afghanistan have been liberated by our troops, and our friends, the Afghans, went to the polls by the millions for the first time in 5,000 years,” he said. “Very shortly, because of the great work of our military, and the military of our friends, the people of Iraq will be voting. This is a major achievement, and it’s a major milestone in the advance of liberty.”

The president admitted that bringing liberty to Iraq “has not been easy,” but “it’s going to happen,” he said. “And when it does, our military, and those of us who have been fortunate enough to be involved with our military, will be able to look back and say we did our duty, we did our duty for freedom, and we did our duty for generations of Americans to come.”

Before leaving, the president again thanked the audience, telling those veterans who have served and those who are now serving, “I am incredibly proud to be your commander in chief.”

(editor’s note: The simple search used at Google for news on this topic in the previous post was used at Yahoo for this post. The first result returned was this story.)
Some Presidents honor the troops.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most Americans do not support bailout plans promoted and implemented by the federal government. Even the lefty Think Progress stated that only 25% of Americans support the bailout in September of 2008. When the left antiwar crowd emphasized a poll indicating 2/3 of Americans opposed the war in Iraq, Pelosi and her New Direction for America slogan routinely pounded the Bush Administration to withdraw from Iraq as did each and every Democratic party candidate for President including Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

So now that Barack Obama is President, HRC is SofS and the New Direction for America claimed they had a mandate from the American people, where is the opposition to the bailout??

Rasmussen polls agree with others that only 30% approved of the bailout before the fall vote. Now the polling shows 54% believe the government must have a plan but that does not necessarily mean the one they’re using.

Both the GOP and Dems share responsibility as groups of politicians who have members supporting the bailout. Where is the opposition to legislation and policies that are not supported by most Americans?

The item below speaks more to the will of the citizens of the United States than most of anything else available. While Mike Pence is still an unknown quantity at this blog and this one speech does not render him an automatic recipient of public support his words are worth reading. Perhaps you will agree that the sentiment parallels your own on this particular issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, gave the following speech from the floor of the U.S. House today to oppose further funding of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

“Our nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. It’s a crisis of confidence in our financial markets. And let’s be honest, it’s a crisis of confidence in our government. While many are anxious about how we’ll confront these times many more face this moment with faith, not fear.

“We’ll get through this. We’ve confronted greater challenges than this. I’m confident we will restore our markets and renew our government. But as I said last fall in the original debate, we must do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles that make America great.

“As the distinguished Chairman of this Committee said following last week’s action in the Senate, ‘No matter what happens here today the second half of the bailout funding will go forward,’ adding $350 billion to the national debt and burdening future generations of Americans with the mistakes of Wall Street and Capitol Hill during the present day.

“Despite sincere efforts at reform. this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people.

“I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last fall and I cannot support the legislation before the Congress that would send good money after bad.

“As I said then, while this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial markets, I ask my countrymen, at what price? The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupted a basic truth of our free market economy: Government can’t control outcomes in an economy without eroding the independence and the integrity of our free market system.

“When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses. Now, some say this crisis was too acute to rely on what they call antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free enterprise and representative democracy and personal responsibility are as relevant today as they were in 1776.

“Now, there are no easy answers to these times, but the American people deserve to know that there were and are alternatives. Last fall, House Republicans offered an alternative that would have required Wall Street, not Main Street, to pay the cost of this recovery. And today, House Republicans are preparing fast-acting tax relief instead of more bailouts and more spending to get this economy moving again.

“President Theodore Roosevelt said, ‘An American must face life with resolute courage. Win victory, if he can and accept defeat, if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.’

“With this legislation we again - by second half - place upon the American public a responsibility which was not theirs, bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business decisions. This we should not have done. This we should not do again.

“Instead, we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, faith in God, faith in the American people and the ideals of freedom and free enterprise. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing further funding of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Woo Hoo!! It’s inauguration day in the United States. While Barack Obama scored big in the electoral vote over John McCain by about 2 to 1, the popular vote was 52% to 48%. That may be significant in election results but maybe not as a voter mandate. Both percentages are close enough to 50% to say that about half the country supported each candidate. Those who supported Barack Obama for President are understandably exuberant or euphoric. Those who opposed him are not so happy. Some of Obama’s opposition suggest we should hope he is successful as it would be in all our best interests. It may be insufficient to express that sentiment without knowing the definition of ’successful’ in this case. If he succeeds in accomplishing his own objectives that may not meet with approval even from the entire 52% who voted for him. Most Americans may hold a similar opinion as those in other countries on hopes for a new President. If his agenda is good for them personally they will approve, otherwise not. It is after all a somewhat selfish world.

The current situation in the Middle East may indicate how a new American President may influence world events before officially becoming President. In all the back and forth violence in the Middle East do you remember any time in the past when Arab countries were at odds with each other over how to proceed or what stance to take in view of the international press? In December 2008, ‘Anti-Israel protests erupted throughout the Middle East again on Monday, as Israeli forces continued air strikes against Hamas targets on the Gaza Strip. More than 300 people, including many civilians, have been killed in the assault, which Israel launched in response to a series of rocket attacks launched from Gaza.’ As this quote indicates Israel launched an offensive in response to attacks from Gaza. The United States and other Western nations have blamed Hamas for triggering the outbreak of violence. That was the beginning with expected protest from supporters of Hamas and the US and other Western nations holding Hamas responsible for the ‘outbreak’. ‘In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, Thomas Steg, said the chancellor believes Hamas is exclusively and clearly responsible for the violence.

That is where typical ended. An Egyptian peace plan, crafted to put an end to the Gaza conflict, appears to be at the center of the diplomatic row between pro-Western Arab states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and more hardline states, including Syria, Sudan and Iran. It is no surprise that Syria, Sudan and Iran are listed here as hardline states. Similarly referring to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as pro-Western is not far off the mark although sometimes it is hard to tell why they are referred to this way. Two rival Arab gatherings have been taking place in Kuwait and Qatar, reflecting the deep divide among Arab leaders over how to react to the three-week-old conflict in Gaza. The bitter division is taking Arab leaders into uncharted territory. The unchartered territory is the part hinted at earlier suggesting this has never happened before or at least was not this noticeable. Could it be that the first crowning of a new king in the US is responsible for these events?

A look at other opinions expressed around the world may help. But it may require reading between the lines as is often the case in public affairs, politics or other endeavors featuring public statements. World financial markets operated with the US markets on holiday in honor of MLKjr. The other world markets posted modest gains and have a different take than the public at large over Obama’s election. Will a huge stimulus and more bailouts be forthcoming? Britain appears to be following lock step with handouts to banks and other businesses like their US counterparts. The markets appear to be hesitant in much the same way as foreign governments seem to be.

India’s impression and expectations for the new American President may differ widely from other countries simply because of their form of government in addition to selfish interests which for them include Pakistan and US sentiment toward them. The incoming Obama White House is going to be watched closely from the world’s largest democracy. India has enjoyed a warming relationship with the United States under the past two presidential administrations following decades when American policy in the region clearly tilted in favor of Pakistan - India’s primary rival. Other selfish motives are nuclear weapons treaties and test bans not to mention outsourcing of American jobs.

In contrast, Syria claims to be ready to cooperate with the US. On the one hand they say they want to work with the US on the Iran nukes problem and on the other hand they want to be friendly to Iran. Ya, that’ll work. But who knows after Pelosi and friends assumed the role of President and went to Syria and other countries to show off. As mentioned earlier Arab countries seem to be having difficulty crafting a coherent strategy on foreign affairs.

North Korea may have figured the Bush efforts would not be successful with other world leaders providing ineffective leadership as well in the matter of nukes there. One expert says NK has weaponized plutonium and no one seems to be making much of it. With nothing concluded on this topic during the Bush years North Korea may be right in expecting more of the same with Obama.

While economic concerns top the agenda, people here will be watching closely to see how the incoming president deals with the Middle East, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and climate change. A hefty workload for America’s next leader, but a leader who will have a lot of supporters in Europe who will be wishing him every success. One never knows with the EU. That could go for the rest of the world when it comes to opinion on the US. While the US takes a lot of heat from many sources around the world it is interesting how they all await the next move as if their own existence depends on it. Maybe it does. Could it be that in the EU they may oppose the US at times for the same reason those in our own country do? (selfish reasons masquerading as genuine concern)

Beijing says it is ready to work with the Obama administration, but it is also waiting to see how China is treated. The Chinese government has already indicated it considers the Taiwan issue a priority. See, it is no different anywhere. Everyone appraises the US with the same standard…..what have you done for me lately?

Many ordinary Russians have been impressed by Mr. Obama. A journalism student in Moscow named Nastia told VOA that Mr. Obama strikes her as a great speaker. She says his inauguration holds promise for improved U.S.-Russian relations following what she says was a period of neglect under President George Bush. Same problems with the bear as with everyone else when it comes to analyzing the US and forming opinions. What have you done for me lately? There was a period of (Russian) neglect under President George Bush? It is not like Putin and company were cozying up to anyone at the time. One must remember it was not that long ago these two nations ran the planet. And it may have been in Putin’s interest to appear tough on America for his own political purposes at home.

Dear almost former President Bush:
Thanks for keeping us safe. (proof is we haven’t been attacked since 9/11) Like all Presidents some of your work was successful and some was not. Take a well deserved vacation and solace in the fact that as some say once you’ve been away for a while and things calm down your ‘legacy’ will be more favorably reviewed down the road. There will be no review here and now. Well except for that shamnesty thing. there won’t be any. Damn, what were you thinking?

Dear almost President Obama:
You’ve got some ’splainin’ to do. This blog will treat you in a fashion described regularly by your friend Sean Hannity. When you do something or are responsible for something that finds agreement here you will be applauded and supported. The reverse is also true. You do not have much time to get things right. Even your far left fringe supporters are unsure where you are going and are not happy. The rest of us are sure where you are going and not happy. There may not be a honeymoon.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of the excuses given by the federal government, aka President Bush and his Democrats as well as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, for providing bailout money on behalf of failed corporations like the auto industry was to restore investor confidence on Wall Street and consumer confidence on Main Street. While most consumers oppose the bailout frenzy, last check showed 60% or more oppose it, Wall Street is apparently no more confident than Main Street.

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said the biggest U.S. automaker got “what we asked for” with $9.4 billion in U.S. loans over the next 24 days. Investors bet that it’s not enough.

So why are investors growing more pessimistic about the auto industry bailout? One reason might be the following information from the same Bloomberg report. GM tumbled the most in more than a month yesterday in New York trading, while credit-default swaps on the company’s bonds jumped 2 percentage points in a sign of increasing concern that the Bush administration’s bailout may end in a default.

You have to just love the assortment of derivatives and other schemes available on Wall Street. Credit-default swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any number of derivatives available on Wall Street do complicate keeping score. Which by the way is really what investors using these products are doing. Not really investing, just keeping score and betting on the outcome. What do you mean it sounds like Vegas? An article surprisingly enough from TIME magazine has an interesting take on the subject. You can read it here.

“It’s almost impossible for a management that invested in the assets, that hired the people, that put forth the strategy, to change so dramatically in such a short period of time,” That quote from Edward Altman, a finance professor at New York University, may best describe much of what the rest of us have been thinking. If GM, Chrysler and/or Ford cannot avoid bankruptcy under normal circumstances, what good is a huge taxpayer funded bailout going to change?

Here’s the take at this point from GM’s CEO. Wagoner said last week that having secured the federal loans, GM’s biggest challenges would be working with debt holders on debt-for-equity exchanges and negotiating cost-saving agreements with unions. What he is really saying is what we all know. Everyone else will have to give something up or lose something for GM to possibly avoid bankruptcy. Something Wall Street and Main Street are convinced will happen anyway. All the numbers point that way.

Another item that stinks according to the view on this blog is that Ford is the only one of the three described as not in as much trouble as the other two. Yet their American competitors are being handed public money to delay the inevitable. Maybe if the likely outcome was not being interfered with by politicians Ford could survive by being slightly smarter than the other two companies. More evidence that the auto industry is in trouble comes from the foreign competitors.

Toyota has expressed it may be facing its first ever operating loss. That is big news and another indication of systemic problems for manufacturing in the turmoil that is the global financial crisis. Japanese car companies are typically considered leaner and more efficient than their American counterparts but whether true or not it gives credence to the notion that whatever the condition of this industry, harsh economic reality in terms of a global recession may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — The worst U.S. auto market since the early 1990s may force Toyota Motor Corp. to do something that was once unthinkable: cut its North American payroll. Read the rest of the article to view the losses and negative forecast. This thing may just be heating up.

Even Russia is in the auto industry loop with concerns and money for fixing what may be unfixable. Russian citizens are protesting tariff increases on imported ‘used cars’ while the Russian government is offering assistance to car buyers. It is always a little different in Russia. But what is the same is auto industry troubles.

All over the globe car makers are retreating. The South Korean car makers yesterday said they will reduce output in December by an average of four hours a day per plant as the global recession saps auto demand. Toyota also joined Honda Motor Co. in cutting its earnings forecast because of the slowdown. And it just keeps getting worse for the automotive manufacturers and related business.

So the frequently expressed concern is again directed at those in Washington who push the bailouts with taxpayer funds. What the hell are you thinking?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Certainly one of the most controversial people in the Bush Administration was Vice-President Dick Cheney. Some of the chatter from a recent interview provides a little humor on the subject of VP-elect Joe Biden and more insight on the topic of executive powers as viewed from the Bush Administration. The single item as viewed from this blog which comprises the most significance is that this nation has not been attacked since 9/11. Cheney includes references to Abraham Lincoln and FDR when comparing the use of executive powers during war time. There is something to be said for the need to protect the country and the extent to which a President goes to achieve that objective and honor the oath of office. Not a question that will be resolved any time soon.

Below are a couple of quotes from the Fox News Sunday interview between Chris Wallace and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

WALLACE: Transition officials say that Biden plans to shrink his office, that he is not going to meet with Senate Democrats the way you did every week with Senate Republicans, that he is not going to have his own, quote, “shadow government” in the White House.

Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power.

CHENEY: Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that the — all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution. Well, they’re not. Article 1 of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch.

Joe’s been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can’t keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive.

So I think — I write that off as campaign rhetoric. I don’t take it seriously. And if he wants to diminish the office of vice president, that’s obviously his call.

I think that President-elect Obama will decide what he wants in a vice president. And apparently, from the way they’re talking about it, he does not expect him to have as consequential a role as I’ve had during my time.

and another quote from the interview on Fox News Sunday (December 21, 2008)

WALLACE: What do you think are the powers of the president relative to Congress and the courts during the war?

CHENEY: I think they’re very significant, and I think they have to be. And I think there’s ample precedent for that. I mean, the fact of the matter is that, especially given the kind of conflict we’re faced with today, we find ourselves in a situation where I believe you need strong executive leadership.

What we did in this administration is to exert that kind of authority. We did it in a manner that I believe and the lawyers that we looked to for advice believed was fully consistent with the Constitution and with the laws of the land. And there’s, I say, ample precedent for it.

If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II, they went far beyond anything we’ve done in the global war on terror.

But we have exercised, I think, the legitimate authority of the president under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander in chief in order to put in place policies and programs that have successfully defended the nation.

I think if…

No President nor his administration is perfect. The Bush Administration was no exception. It may be that people’s views of a particular President are focused largely on one or two issues and the reflection of those opinions in a poll are misleading or unfair.even if the approval rating is acceptable. Are the polls that offer approval ratings the result of mainly partisan support or opposition? That would be unfortunate. Just as President Bush suffers from a dismal approval rating along with Congress, will the Obama Administration be subjected to the same measure? It should be realistic to note that each administration will do things right and wrong. The trouble is having people admit both cases rather than only the one that fits their preferences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This post is a bit outside the norm for this blog but then so is the economic insanity that currently dominates the actions of the federal government. Bailout mania has been sold to the American public as a necessity. The latest move off the deep end features President Bush lobbing public cash to the auto industry as the few in Congress who opposed this idea were able to defeat a similar move by the House of Representatives. A few Senate Republicans whose motives are unclear were able to stop another foolish bailout of  a group of businesses gone mad. So a totally irreverent music video not for viewing by everyone may actually be appropriate under the circumstances. The motives of those responsible for the video may not be clear either but at this point what does it matter.

There are no apologies here for those who may be offended by the content of this video. Offering it here is simply this blog’s way of saying everything is so screwed up on the economic and political scene a little raw uncensored video entertainment may be just what the doctor ordered. The video and press release are offered below. View at your own risk.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Fpoebz2LE

“F**k the Fed” Music Video Targets the Federal Reserve System and Strikes a Chord on YouTube

With his CD (”Now It’s Personal”) playing on AAA stations, Neal Fox stirs things up on YouTube. His uncensored, controversial Rap video, “F**k the Fed,” uncloaks the Federal Reserve and gets rave reviews.

Boca Raton, FL (PRWEB) December 18, 2008 — Neal Fox’s latest CD, “Now It’s Personal,” is airing on AAA stations, so creating a music video with a controversial theme is good timing. Known for his social commentary and wit–and with current events providing lots of material–Fox didn’t have to look hard for subject matter. The target was clear: The Federal Reserve System.

News about “the Fed” changing interest rates is common, and anticipated with fear or hope. But the Federal Reserve also controls the flow of money by issuing new funds, as in the recent bailout. Yet according to the Constitution, issuing money is one of the Powers of Congress. Congress — not a group of privately owned banks.

Fox wrote this song because, like every one else, he’s “fed” up with the economy and its doom-and-gloom forecast. But this is no dry commentary. It’s a concise and hilarious dart-throwing statement that hits a bull’s-eye. If you’re a Ron Paul supporter, a fan of Aaron Russo’s films, or just a disillusioned citizen, this one’s for you.

The Rap vocal and infectious rhythm have viewers chanting “F**k the Fed” along with Fox. The video strikes back at those who created this mess and those who benefit from it. So if you’re pissed off, check out Neal Fox’s “F**k the Fed” video and have a good laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Fpoebz2LE (Note: This video is uncensored.)

Neal Fox is a veteran songwriter whose career spans decades in the music business. It includes a charted single, a Top Ten Dance Club Hit, Clio and Telly Awards, music for the Killer Tomatoes movies, six self-released CDs, and theme music for “Eye to Eye with Connie Chung,” “Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel,” “CBS Saturday Morning,” and the “CBS Evening News with Dan Rather.”

“F**k the Fed” will soon be available for download on iTunes, with the rest of Fox’s music. You can also buy his CDs through MySpace, CD Baby, Amazon, and other popular sites, or order them from retailers. Currently distributed by CD Baby. Licensing is available through his music publishing company Foxalot Music, http://www.foxalotmusic.com and his official web site is Wire Duck Records, http://www.wireduck.com.

###