Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies. I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
Didn't the article say that the WMDs found in Iraq are older, they were not the ones the UN expected us to find?
Either way, he had them and he used them.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
chanilover wrote:I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies.
It's just a "changing of the guard".
I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
He's also the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces, that's how.
He can also introduce and veto legislation.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
Didn't the article say that the WMDs found in Iraq are older, they were not the ones the UN expected us to find?
Either way, he had them and he used them.
He didn't have those really frightening ones which threatened the West and could be deployed in 45 minutes. So the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
Didn't the article say that the WMDs found in Iraq are older, they were not the ones the UN expected us to find?
Either way, he had them and he used them.
He didn't have those really frightening ones which threatened the West and could be deployed in 45 minutes. So the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
So it's OK if he's only a threat to his immediate neighbors?
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
chanilover wrote:I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies.
It's just a "changing of the guard".
I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
He's also the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces, that's how.
He can also introduce and veto legislation.
The fact that he is so closely involved in the executive branch of government means that he can't effectively preserve the constitution. The idea of having a neutral guarantor of the constitution who makes sure the branches of government run smoothly and resolves disputes between them comes from a long dead Swiss constitutional theorist called Benjamin Constant. The US president has the executive power so it's not appropriate for any US president to claim the role of a neutral authority as far as the constitution is concerned.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
chanilover wrote:I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies.
It's just a "changing of the guard".
I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
He's also the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces, that's how.
He can also introduce and veto legislation.
The fact that he is so closely involved in the executive branch of government means that he can't effectively preserve the constitution. The idea of having a neutral guarantor of the constitution who makes sure the branches of government run smoothly and resolves disputes between them comes from a long dead Swiss constitutional theorist called Benjamin Constant. The US president has the executive power so it's not appropriate for any US president to claim the role of a neutral authority as far as the constitution is concerned.
Interesting.
"Defend the Constitution" is also part of the oath you take when you join the military.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
Didn't the article say that the WMDs found in Iraq are older, they were not the ones the UN expected us to find?
Either way, he had them and he used them.
He didn't have those really frightening ones which threatened the West and could be deployed in 45 minutes. So the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
So it's OK if he's only a threat to his immediate neighbors?
No, but even that doesn't give the US and its allies the right to invade the country. The threat he posed to his neighbours, whatever that might have been, wasn't the reason given for the invasion, so it can't be used as a justification.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
chanilover wrote:I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies.
It's just a "changing of the guard".
I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
He's also the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces, that's how.
He can also introduce and veto legislation.
The fact that he is so closely involved in the executive branch of government means that he can't effectively preserve the constitution. The idea of having a neutral guarantor of the constitution who makes sure the branches of government run smoothly and resolves disputes between them comes from a long dead Swiss constitutional theorist called Benjamin Constant. The US president has the executive power so it's not appropriate for any US president to claim the role of a neutral authority as far as the constitution is concerned.
Interesting.
"Defend the Constitution" is also part of the oath you take when you join the military.
Wonder why. Maybe it's been carried over from the presidential oath? T
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
Freakzilla wrote:A US President can't be expected to know everything, the decisions he makes are only as good as the intelligence he gets. That's what his cabinet is for and I suppose that is why Obama is surrounding himself with criminals.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."
However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.
This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Just because the liberal media doesn't report it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
Didn't the article say that the WMDs found in Iraq are older, they were not the ones the UN expected us to find?
Either way, he had them and he used them.
He didn't have those really frightening ones which threatened the West and could be deployed in 45 minutes. So the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
So it's OK if he's only a threat to his immediate neighbors?
No it's not okay, but it's not like he's the only dangerous guy around. Why aren't the troops in North Korea? Kim-Jong practically shouted at the top of his lungs that he has WMDs and was even testing them, but for some oily reason, Bush was not interested.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza
Like suspending donations from foreign nations while she's Secretary of State means anything. They've already gotten millions, does the Senate thing all the "deals" that were made to get that money will be dropped?
How stupid do they think we are?
I think life would be much more pleasant if I was dumber.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
I was waiting ion eager anticpation for Obama to get killed. (I was thinking maybe they'd come in with armed Helicopters, blow the whole place to Hell)
When it didn't happen I had soo muc hAdrenline left over I just luaghed histercally for a little bit, then quieted down.
chanilover wrote:I saw the inauguration ceremony - what a laugh, he fluffed his lines. It's quaint how Americans love all these meaningless ceremonies.
It's just a "changing of the guard".
I've got no idea how an executive president can "protect and preserve the constitution" - what a meaningless statement, he's a partisan politician.
He's also the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces, that's how.
He can also introduce and veto legislation.
The fact that he is so closely involved in the executive branch of government means that he can't effectively preserve the constitution. The idea of having a neutral guarantor of the constitution who makes sure the branches of government run smoothly and resolves disputes between them comes from a long dead Swiss constitutional theorist called Benjamin Constant. The US president has the executive power so it's not appropriate for any US president to claim the role of a neutral authority as far as the constitution is concerned.
Interesting.
"Defend the Constitution" is also part of the oath you take when you join the military.
Wonder why. Maybe it's been carried over from the presidential oath? T
The oath of office is specifically written into the Constitution, it's the only sentence in quotes in the entire document. I think this is because under the Constitution the president is a citizen first.
Article II, section I: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hypatia approaches one.
I'm a ... Rock ... et MAN. Burning.
Out.
His fuse.
Up here.
Alone.
(Shat's a Canadian, right? )
One of the grad students in my conversation class went online while we were talking about the Inauguration and found out she (Elizabeth Alexander) is a poet, playwright and professor at "Yell" (Howl! Scream! Ack!) University.
And a friend of Obama's.
Here's the verse that stuck (like an ice pick) in my head:
Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.
And this was memorable, too:
We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.
Oy.
By the end, I was a mass,
A quivering mass of manflesh,
Huddling beneath a blanket,
Tittering until tittering became
Guffaws.
I'm sorry, but that is some nasty shit.
Of course, since she's a black woman, by saying that she sucks, I'm automatically a sexist and a racist, right?
Gah.
(Do we still have a poet laureate? OK, we do: Kay Ryan. Thank gawd it's not the Vogon.)
"Let the dead give water to the dead. As for me, it's NO MORE FUCKING TEARS!"
Hillary Clinton will be confirmed. Some silly Republican trying to stall the process will not stop her from being confirmed.
What do you have against Hillary Clinton anyway? Just because she will work for Obama and that she endorsed him when she ended her candidacy? Or that she forgave her husband for having an affair? She will make a great Secetary of State. I actually wanted her to be VP.
I know how much you despise Obama for opposing the war in Iraq before it started (I also opposed the war before it started so you must hate me also), but Clinton voted FOR it and never regreted it. So why do you object to her being Secretary of State? She will be allowed to criticize Obama. In fact, Obama encourages differing opinions in his cabinet.
For a self-styled "fan of American politics" you certainly are clueless about it all, aren't you? Did you even read the article Freak linked to?
But don't worry, Freak doesn't hate you. He's probably not even aware of your existence; he has more important things to worry about. Like car engine trouble. Or his emo-wannabe manchild. Whether the six in the fridge are chilled yet.
Even I, who am most mindful of you, do not hate you.
For I am your God. And you my modern Job. Rejoice therefore and be glad, for I shall continue to watch over you and bathe you in the waters of my Tough Love, yea verily, even until the End of Days.
Nebiros wrote:Hillary Clinton will be confirmed. Some silly Republican trying to stall the process will not stop her from being confirmed.
What do you have against Hillary Clinton anyway? Just because she will work for Obama and that she endorsed him when she ended her candidacy? Or that she forgave her husband for having an affair? She will make a great Secetary of State. I actually wanted her to be VP.
I think that receiving millions of dollars in "contributions" from arab states might be a conflict of interest for the Secretary of State.
I know how much you despise Obama for opposing the war in Iraq before it started (I also opposed the war before it started so you must hate me also), but Clinton voted FOR it and never regreted it. So why do you object to her being Secretary of State? She will be allowed to criticize Obama. In fact, Obama encourages differing opinions in his cabinet.
I don't dispise Obama for opposing the war, if more democrats had done that they would have a reason to bitch, but they didn't and now we should finish it right.
But that's going to be tough when the Secretary of State is taking bribes from the arabs.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Nebiros wrote:Hillary Clinton will be confirmed. Some silly Republican trying to stall the process will not stop her from being confirmed.
What do you have against Hillary Clinton anyway? Just because she will work for Obama and that she endorsed him when she ended her candidacy? Or that she forgave her husband for having an affair? She will make a great Secetary of State. I actually wanted her to be VP.
I think that receiving millions of dollars in "contributions" from arab states might be a conflict of interest for the Secretary of State.
I know how much you despise Obama for opposing the war in Iraq before it started (I also opposed the war before it started so you must hate me also), but Clinton voted FOR it and never regreted it. So why do you object to her being Secretary of State? She will be allowed to criticize Obama. In fact, Obama encourages differing opinions in his cabinet.
I don't dispise Obama for opposing the war, if more democrats had done that they would have a reason to bitch, but they didn't and now we should finish it right.
But that's going to be tough when the Secretary of State is taking bribes from the arabs.
+1 Zing!
save us all from 2016 when Billary take another run at it...
I must agree with Nebiros on one point though, I think Hillary would have been able to do a lot less damage to the world as VP.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris Jim Vandehei, John F. Harris – Wed Jan 21, 3:20 am ET
Even in a city of cynics, the Inauguration of a new president — and the infusion of new ideas, new personalities and new energy that comes with it — summons feelings of reverence.
Barack Obama, especially, is the object of inaugural good feelings. He has assembled an impressive White House and Cabinet team. The country is clearly in his corner. With the economy gasping, and two wars dragging on sullenly, even many Republicans who ordinarily might enjoy seeing Obama fail now root for him to succeed. The stakes are simply too great.
Amid all these high hopes, it may seem needlessly sour to point out why expectations must be kept in check. But it is also realistic.
Here are seven reasons to be skeptical of Obama’s chances — and the Washington establishment he now leads:
1. The genius fallacy
There is no disputing Obama has built a Cabinet of sharp and experienced public officials. His staff, especially on national security and economic matters, is often praised as brilliant — and that’s by Republicans.
But recent history teaches us to be wary of the larger-than-life Washington figures supposedly striding across history’s stage. Consider the economy. Everyone seems to agree Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner are smart, vastly qualified to manage and repair the economy.
Everyone was saying the exact same things about the two economic geniuses of the 1990s: Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Now Rubin has been reduced to making excuses for his involvement in high-risk investments and for helping oversee the demise of Citigroup, which lost $10 billion in the past three months alone. The onetime oracular Greenspan has admitted to Congress that his once-revered economic philosophy had “a flaw,” and many blame him for turning a blind eye to the housing bubble.
As it happens, the Obama economic team is full of Rubin protégés, including Geithner and Summers. Geithner had to recently admit he failed to pay taxes on a big chunk of income — as part of his confirmation process to run tax policy and the Internal Revenue Service. As president of the New York Fed, he was integrally involved in the decision not to rescue Lehman Bros., which many see, in retrospect, as a grievous error.
The reception of the Obama economic team recalls the reception of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy team eight years ago. Many Democrats applauded the experience of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
As Bush named his national security team in 2000, The New York Times editorialized: “Putting superstar players on the court does not always guarantee harmony or success.” In retrospect, that was an understatement, indeed.
2. The herd instinct
The most bipartisan tradition in Washington is to laud bipartisanship, even while lamenting that there is not enough of it.
But the instinct for bipartisanship overlooks an inconvenient fact: Some of Washington’s biggest blunders occur when the government moves to do big things with big support. Bush won the much-regretted Iraq war resolution of October 2002 with strong Democratic backing.
The current economic crisis produces similar pressure to get on board the train — never mind for sure where it’s going.
It is easy to sympathize with the temptation. Top officials on Obama’s team told us in recent days that things are much worse than most people appreciate. The Obama staff and top lawmakers are getting stern warnings that the banking system in particular is extremely fragile and could collapse. So they are moving with amazing speed to pump money into the economy.
First up is the stimulus package that could top $900 billion. It is a mind-numbing number rarely contemplated in U.S. history — and yet it might not work. There are no guarantees people will spend money the government doles out or that it will be enough to offset miserable economic performance elsewhere.
The history isn’t encouraging.
Rewind just a few months back. Republicans and Democrats alike said the best of many bad options was to approve $700 billion to prop up banks, mainly to thaw the credit freeze and juice the economy. Half the money is gone now. Many banks took the cash and sat on it. Some used it increase lending. But much of it was wasted or unaccounted for. Now Washington wants to spend the rest of it.
And a top Hill aide told Politico’s David Rogers that Democrats will probably need to request even more.
3. We are broke.
The past several months have produced a rare convergence. Something that politicians of both parties find pleasurable — spending money — has overlapped with what economists and policy experts of all ideological stripes said is urgently necessary. As “Saturday Night Live’s” Church Lady used to say, “How convenient.”
One month from now, Democrats will likely have passed the massive stimulus bill and Obama will have signed it into law. The new Treasury Department will be well on its way to spending the second $350 billion chunk of the $700 billion bank bailout fund.
After this rush of activity, the ability to spend during the balance of Obama’s first term — never mind if there is a second — will be sharply constrained.
Instead, the new administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill will awaken to another first: the prospect of the national deficit approaching $2 trillion. For most, these numbers are simply too big to ponder. But ponder this: This country has never reckoned with deficits like these.
Wait, it gets worse. Remember those entitlement programs the elderly and poor need more than ever: Social Security and Medicare? In budget terms, they are more troubled than ever.
Social Security’s surpluses “begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires,” according to one recent report. “Medicare’s financial status,” the report said, “is even worse.”
Basically, the government needs more money than ever at a time when people are losing jobs, income and confidence.
4. Words, words, words
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, though starkly different men, both viewed the presidency as pre-eminently a decision-making job. Clinton often waved away speech drafts bloated with lofty language by saying: “Words, words, words.”
Obama seems to have a different view of the presidency. He thinks that the right decisions can be reached by putting reasonable and enlightened people together and reaching a consensus. He believes his job as president is to educate and inspire, largely matters of style.
He knows he is good with words. He knows he has great style. So that’s why he projects exceptional confidence in his ability to do the job.
We don’t know yet how justified Obama is in his self-confidence — or how naive.
But he is almost certain to face many tests, probably imminently, in which the test will be Obama’s ability to act quickly and shrewdly — and not merely describe his actions smoothly or impress people with nuance. And an unlike a governor — who must decide what’s in a budget and what gets cut, or whether a person to be executed at midnight should be spared — Obama has not made many decisions for which the consequences affect more than himself.
5. He rarely challenges the home team.
Obama frequently talks of the need to transcend partisanship. And he invokes his support for charter schools — a not-terribly-controversial idea — as evidence that he is willing to challenge Democratic special interest groups.
In fact, there are few examples of him making decisions during the campaign or the transition that offended his own party’s constituencies, or using rhetoric that challenged his own supporters to rethink assumptions or yield on a favored cause.
Has Obama ever delivered a “Sister Souljah speech”? Ever stood up to organized labor in the way that Clinton did in passing North American Free Trade Agreement?
This is not a good sign. By Obama’s lights, the national interest usually coincides with his personal interest. Back to you, Church Lady.
6. Everyone is winging it.
No matter how much confidence Obama or other politicians project, the reality is the current economic crisis has totally scrambled the intellectual assumptions of almost every policymaker. People who used to bemoan deficits want to spend like crazy. Improvisation is the only proper response. But the chances that improvisation will take the country to exactly the right destination — without some serious wrong turns along the way — seem very slight.
7. The watchdogs are dozing.
The big media companies that once invested in serious accountability journalism are shells of their former selves. The Tribune Co. — in other words, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune — has slashed its Washington staff by more than half. Newspaper chains such as Cox are fleeing D.C. altogether.
The end result: There are few reporters in this country doing the kind of investigative reporting that hold government officials’ feet to the fire. Think back eight years to the pre-Iraq war reporting and consider the words of Scott McClellan in his otherwise humdrum book.
“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise,” McClellan wrote. “In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”
Rigorous reporting is even more important when you have one-party rule in Washington. Democrats, like Republicans, are simply less likely to scrutinize a president of their own. The end result here: Don’t expect the Democratic Congress to investigate the Obama administration or hold a bunch of tough oversight hearings. That means the only real check on Obama is the same one it’s always been — the voters.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Poor old George Bush. In his final press conference he listed one of the "disappointments" of his presidency as "not having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". If only George had gone to that cretin's website he would have realised that WMDs had been found! Fancy the president of the US not knowing that. I call bullshit on that site.
)
