Really? My God, why is this even a question?? Why is this even a debate?? Why does this complete manure pile even exist?

We The People spoke Loud & Clear for months before it was passed, and again this past November, that we DO NOT WANT this unconstitutional garbage rammed down our throats. And yet Obama and his minions disgracefully still did so.

Not only should it be repealed, but every member of Congress who voted for it, as well as Obama, have betrayed their Oath to Defend the Constitution of the United States, and they should be arrested & put on trial for Treason, period.

Society is strained paying for the costs incurred by uninsured motorists, so it compels everyone to buy insurance before driving. Society is also strained paying the unnecessary extra costs of injuries among unrestrained motorists, so we are compelled to use seat belts and pay for air bags. Society is even more burdened by paying for the 45 million Americans who have to use emergency rooms after they've had little choice but to let easily treated conditions become critical. So we compel everyone to buy medical insurance.

We are compelled to buy roads and bridges and tunnels and armies and post offices and police and fire departments, so what makes this one area a constitutional crisis? If the forced purchase of a product from a business bothers you, then let's move on to fully public insurance, like Medicare for all. Then it will be exactly the same as buying that jet fighter and your local town government.

Yes it should be repealed because the Federal government has no other responsibility than to provide us with secure borders, a military, a always peaceful union, and a common currency. Thats it!

It is also important for Americans to realize the difference between rights and commodities. The right Americans have that is related to Health care is that of "the pursuit of happiness." That means Americans have a right to PURSUIT health care, not a right TO health care. The sooner Americans realize this, the sooner the government wont be involved as much.

Repeal it!

The health care law requires businesses to file a 1099 tax form identifying anyone to whom they pay $600 or more for goods or merchandise in a year. That alone will increase costs on small businesses and thus will not hire extra workers.

But it also requires individuals to buy health care insurance. Since when does the government decide what I have to spend my money on? What if I want to self insure? Now medicare and social secuirty are required payments if you work. but what if you do not work? Why do you still have to buy something if you want to self insure???

The Health care law requires insurnace companies to spend 80% of their fees on health care. Since when can the government decide what percentage companies must spend their fees on?
What if it's 79.1%? or 65% or 81%?

The government requires insurance companies to cover preconditions. Insurance companies are in the business of placing bets..They are betting the insured will not file a claim, the insured is reducing risk of an event happening. Covering preconditions is a known.There is no bet... Requiring insurance companies to cover pre conditions is stupid. No different than your house is currently burning down and the government forcing insurance companies to sell you fire insurance at that point.

The government screws up everything. Just look at medicare, social security, anything...I do not want these bozos involved in my health care...

The Obama administration has granted over 220 healthcare-reform waivers to unions, corporations, and nonprofits in order to stave off massive policy cancellations and rate hikes affecting 1.5 million workers, according to documents posted online by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

I had a friend who died miserably because she could not afford health insurance. Any civilized nation should ensure health care for its people. Get the insurance companies out of the middle and expand the medicare system.

Yes it should be repealed because it should never have passed in the first place.

It was jammed down our throats as a partisan, "Democrats know best" initiative. Instead, something this controversial should have been introduced as a step by step approach with large majority buy in.

Although there may even be a couple good things in the bill, "symbolism matters". It should be repealed and replaced with a bi-partisan idea. Would it be asking too much to have Pelosi and others apologize to America, for what they put us through?

..I know that's probably over the top. Just wanted to give RNN and other partisans, a taste of their own medicine.

In the Tea Party world, we should have better access to assault rifles than to a doctor.

How anyone agrees with them defies logic and morality.

No. Not after hearing the Republicans "all" of them saying that they would keep most of the bill intact so why the rush to toss 50million Americans under the bus and make the rest of us pay for their EMERGENCY CARE by refusing to tweak the current bill in the interim.
Of course, this is all theatre and the Republicans still in the well all knew it. Not a single one of them offer one single improvement on the bill, not a single one of them could offer a definite benefit to be gained by repealing the bill. All they could do was offer singular cases where a business owner complained of higher costs. Who raised these costs? Of course, this no brainer has the same dipsy doodle answer as you hav e seen form the private insurance industry since time immemorial.
Fewer "insured" means premiums go up. Higher prescription drug costs means that premiums go up. Insurance corporations "speculating" their customers premiums in foreign markets and deriviatives instead of keeping that money that has always been required by law prior to the Bush Administration to be keep in mandatory reserves CAUSED yet again the reasons why your insurance premium to skyrocket.
It was "priceless" to hear Rep. Gingrey assert how unemployed Americans clinging desperately onto life would unquestionably be accepting current low ball job offers w/ absolutely NO INSURANCE provisions right now and that it was only OBAMACARE that stood in the way subordinating this new business model.
YIKES! THAT MAN IS SCARY. If he only knew what those manning his offices think about his cruelty toward Americans he helped to sink w/ his votes of arrogance- HE'D LEARN TO KEEP HIS BIG IGNORANT SELF SERVING MOUTH SHUT.

Let me enumerate just a few just to remind you- a)DEREGULATION b)the overbudget prescription drug bill--> $134BILLION that has Americans paying anywhere from 2x-10x that of foreigners of any other country but, America. Then he voted ALONG WITH EVERY OTHEWR REPUBLICAN to insure that the imbalnce remained that way until this very day. c)WARS TO NOWHERE another $2trillion dollar expense that was heaped onto the middle class tab.

If you Reps & Dems want to see insurance premiums go down with an immediate impact then get the phone and demand that America be the first beneficiary aznd standard model on prescription drug pricing. That no other country can receive a lower price index for American patented prescription drugs. Call your Congressmen Republican or Democrat and tell us the response you receive.
Ask yourself why should we be expected to bear the full brunt of all of private industrys pharmeceutical research. Gouged first at the drug counter. Then fleeced again by 3rd party insurers telling you which of their drug partners they will or will not endorse with your money.
WHEN REPUBLICANS WANT TO RANT ABOUT A DISINTERESTED 3RD PARTY COMING BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTORS- HOW DID THE PARASITES RUNNING THE INSURANCE CARTELS GET THE ONLY FREE PASS IN THESE DISCUSSIONS?

mags: If you were listening at all to the Congressional hearings you would know full well, as do the rest of us, that can comprehend the English language- that both parties are well on their way to remove the 1099 provision and that repeal of the entire law was not necessary.

This was just another one of those Republican lockstep dog and pony shows. "We don't like this, we don't like that, duh we don't have any soilutions so ...let's scrap the whole thing". Our base is consistent always reacts to raw emotion, and loves to see red meat and see visible signs of other people suffering at our hands. LET'S GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT- DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!
How soon you've chosen to have forgotten and forgiven the entire $8.7trillion dollar Republican debt from WARS TO NOWHERE, AND THE BUSH GO-BUST ECONOMY THAT DEREGULATED INSURANCE COMPANYS AND NEARLY BANKRUPTED THIS ENTIRE NATION. YOU TOO AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN NEED TO ASK TO BE FORGIVEN FOR VOTING FOR THAT CREW OF DERELICTS WHO SET IN MOTION EVERY SINGLE MISERY NOW BEFALLING OUR MIDDLE CLASS AND THAT INCLUDES THE ILLEGAL PROBLEM. THE FACT IS THAT THEY LET BUSH AND DELAY SHUT OFF WHATEVER PASSES FOR BRAINS IN THAT PARTY- ... and voila!
Ooooops- ...omigosh let's raid the Fed and your pockets for $3.1 "TRILLION" unfunded dollars. heh, heh.

BUSH COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING OVER THE SPAN OF HIS EIGHT YEAR VACATION- BUT,... TO HIS DISCREDIT AND MISFORTUNE ALL HE DID WAS TRAIN TH ZETA'S WHO NOW RUN THE MEXICAN DRUG TRADE.
+++++++++++++++++++++

...You might think that as well as these drug mules have proven time and time that they can tunnel with the best of them that our government would put them to work, once caught in the commission of another offense or crime, at what they do best and have them create our new water systems and infrastructure for us at the cost of their citizenship, since Republicans are unwilling to pay for Americans to do this much needed work.
Just musing... and providing another well thought out solution toward fiscal responsibility- while your heckle again just sets America backward, tosses out the baby with the bath water and heaps the cost and suffering on the rest of America. Not to mention those 50million who have so rudely learned that EQUALITY- IS JUST ANOTHER DIRTY WORD, UNLESS YOU HEARD IT ALLUDED TO IN DOUBLESPEAK FROM A REPUBLICAN IN THEIR NEXT ATTEMPT AT A PONZI SCHEME TO FLEECE THE REST OF AMERICA.

Caveat Emptor! We are all just one diagnosis away from having a pre-existing condition, ourselves.
Worse yet, wouldn't it be priceless if that diagnosis turned out to be wrong?
Who do you think would you would stand a better chance of taking your position to overturn this descrepancy a)an insurance bean counter b)your Elected official.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Seeing some of the comments here over the past day or two prompted this:

At perhaps his most dystopian, H.G. Wells wrote “Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution….The world has a purpose greater than happiness…and that purpose aims not at man as an end, but works through him to greater issues.” His was the dream and specter of a future in which machines become the servants and hence the masters of man, with the fatalism of the 1933 World’s Fair slogan, “Science explores, Technology executes, Man conforms.” It would be one thing if it were an observation of a putative trait of man, to conform to the quirks of his aids. It’s altogether another thing to say by inference that man SHOULD conform and subsume to some ideology in ascendancy.

The push to get people to subordinate their lives, their expectations, to the needs of, say, unregulated capitalism, to serve the market as a god is served, is the push of an ideology, a newer, improved religion that exalts exploitation. Are we led to believe this abstraction of the market is the final, one true God? Or is it the Baal of hucksters, and we haven’t learned this yet? What other things do we deem holy, when they’re interlocking parts of the long con? Because by what kind of logic can it make sense that any idea or philosophy invented by man should be designed to use him? Wouldn’t mankind want to make something that helps people? If so, then ideas that use people would have to be, it would seem, invented by some people to exploit others, and were not the product of the thrust of civilization. Capitalism, surely, must be one of those ideas invented by some to exploit others.

When a dominant political party in America bases the entirety of its strategy on a bald-faced denial of –and aggressive disparagement of- the real world, then it’s clear we’re not in the hands of operatives with the good of the people in mind, but only the good of the exploiters. A Republican aide spoke derisively about the left who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality….That’s not the way the world works anymore….When we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality- judiciously, as you will- we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.”

And so, in aid of the exploitation of Americans for the enrichment of a few, we’re told that in the real world we have to settle for lower and lower wages and benefits or we’ll price ourselves out of our jobs. Meanwhile, in the REAL real world, Danes have a minimum wage of $10, an average wage of $26, fully paid health care, paid maternity leave, lengthy paid vacation, they are 80% unionized, and the nation’s infrastructure is well-maintained. Norwegians do even better. Swedes also have what the exploiters’ long con says is an impossibly high standard of living. All the assertions that competition makes this impossible are clearly lies, as evidenced by millions upon millions of people every day. But keep pushing the myths necessary to set up a seeming rationale for our continuing decline, and we come to conform to the made-up reality and fight the “damned socialists” who try to get us to open our eyes and look at the REAL real world.
We’re told that the “free market” has to decide things for us, that we must conform to this idea. But of course there is no such thing as the “free market.” “Markets are the creation of government. Governments provide markets with a stable currency for financial transactions. They provide a legal infrastructure and a court system to enforce the contracts that make the market possible. They provide an educated workforce through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, and airways provided by the government. Businesses…are protected by police and fire departments provided by the government, and they send their communications- from phone to e-mail- over lines that follow public rights of way maintained and protected by the government.” (Thom Hartmann, SCREWED)

If Walmart charged one penny more for each $2 item, they’d be able to pay their employees $1 more per hour. Who would notice the penny? Employees, though, would certainly notice and appreciate and benefit from $1 more per hour. So what’s the rationale for not doing this? Could it be just to keep workers too insecure to push for a union and a living wage? Oh, sure, that makes sense. But it’s also vicious to treat people this way, not supportable by any moral society, because no real moral says that people must suffer for the good of corporate control. Yet so many of us have some vague feeling that there must be one, as a result of the well-financed arguments of the hucksters. And so we damn unions and social spending, and do whatever else we can to give over to the rich and powerful ever more wealth and power. The new religion, this ideology of exploitation, has many of us chanting canon we don’t understand, sure of things we took on faith and now are invested in.

For a brief time America was more analytical than it is today, and made dramatic improvements in the human condition, improvements that were copied by other nations that today lead us in these areas. We have for a generation been backsliding into irrationality, and the mass of us are consequently worse off than we’ve been for decades. If we are to pull out of this decline, we have to, well, as John (Spirit) says, “follow the money,” the millions upon millions spent to fill our minds with crap.

Many here reason like trial Lawyers in the sense that the whole truth is not as important as achieving a desired agenda.

Of Course we can put down Capitalism and talk about the greed and excess that exists in certain cases. We can compare it to some countries who have it pretty good and how some people could do better here, if they were given a little more money but that is not the whole truth. There are those who have fled the tyranny of other countries where excess government and tremendous poverty had become the oppressor and came to America for a better life. They came here for an opportunity to work hard and make a decent living and are happy with the freedoms and liberties of this country, even though there is some struggle, there is also comfort for many. That is not to say things can't be better, fairer and so on but to make a one sided argument, is making a case without revealing all the facts.

The health care bill is very similar. It is fair to put down those who would reject it for political or Corporate reasons. It is also very valid and moral to feel anyone who wants health care should be able to get it and even though the middle class loses some choices, its legitimate to feel it is worth it to help others who are less fortunate. However, for one party to mandate this, that the middle class buy something, while the same elite party and their special interests are exempt, reveals their true heart. Are they for us really, if they are not willing to sacrifice like everybody else? Shouldn't we expose their motives as well?

Mike Q:
Society is strained paying for the costs incurred by:

Mike you may have to retake civics #101.

Your post pertains to state law....not federal.

The only time the republicans will come up with a alternative plan is when the health industry writes a bill for them and guess who this will favor. In the case of the energy and medicare part d bill it was the industry who wrote their bills. The republicans favor industry and the wealthy and could care less about the consumer. They will now try to turn over financial regulation and the credit card bills. In regards to the health care instead of working with the democrats to improve it they will just say it is a job killing bill even though the congressional budget office stated it would be a very small amount of jobs. The gop lies about this like the death panel etc. Do not expect any meaningfull bill from them

Obamacare is loaded with junk and pork. Ask any foreigner that comes to America for care that he can't get in his own country. Government has screwed up every
program they enacted to give us a better life and creating another bill is just another grandoise boondoggle. I say we should keep it but get rid of the
high priced law suits, allow us to
to purchase from any state in the union,etc.etc.to bring the costs down

"Your post pertains to state law....not federal."

The post talks about both state and federal purviews.

"That is not to say things can't be better, fairer and so on but to make a one sided argument, is making a case without revealing all the facts."

I'm presenting an argument. Presenting every known thought on a subject is not presenting an argument, it's writing a book. You've stated at times what you believe in. So have I. It seems innocent to you to say what you believe in, but a calculated pressing of an agenda if I do the same.

What someone might have said in response to my post was to say that my call for reason is foolish, since decisions on whether to support or oppose candidates, bills, policies,-are made emotionally, not ratonally. It's the explanation for Democrats having such a hard time,- they don't know how to move peoples' emotions. I feel it's dishonest to do that, and so have no effect on those emotionally set on some conservative/Republican "idea". You, though, see my argument as dishonest, because, oh, I don't know.

Statements about Health Care

Where are the jobs with medical coverage for the average guy? in China? The corporations are chasing the money in the world, and inevitably the United States is a police state and a welfare state for the peasants left behind.

Others will run to foreign countries to save the world first, rather than loyalty to fellow Americans.

"I'm presenting an argument. Presenting every known thought on a subject is not presenting an argument, it's writing a book."

LOL...Very good point. Arguing with yourself or defending your own arguments would not be very healthy mentally, either.

You stick to starting an argument and I will try to defend. That seems to be the natural order of things these days, at least when it comes to politics. Who knows, if you give an inch and I give an inch, we might someday find agreement.

But then, how boring would that be if everybody agreed on everything? I suppose diverse opinions have a value and purpose in life afterall.

PolitiFact's greatest hits on health care

yup. no use -for one- to defend ones own arguments. especialy if said arguments are defined not by fact, but by personal opinion alone. lol.

of course if our friend quackenbush stuck to the facts, instead of personal opinion, based in broad inflamitory, oversimplified, self agrandized, bigoted, generalizations.....there might be somthing actually to argue about.

like i've posted here many times before......its such a shame. what a waste of writing talent- fred

fred: Let's see, I cite authors/publications, and facts such as long-settled laws regarding incitement to riot/mutiny, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. So I do use facts, to support an opinion. Which is what an argument is. And I suppose you could call an opinion bigotry. Maybe if I recited the phone book you would be satisfied with my content. And if I'm inflamatory, everyone seems to be saying No harm done! TIME said, in a "factual" article, that anyone who thinks someone can possibly get anyone to kill is a "complete idiot." Time was careful to stay in the misty world of pop psychology, avoiding actual, empirical evidences such as settled law. Now THAT was a pure opinion piece masquerading as a factual article.

"And if I'm inflamatory, everyone seems to be saying No harm done!"

Because we are on the subject just some food for thought. The more someone puts down an entire group or person without real justification, the more I tend to want to defend that group or person that is being put down.

If for example someone on the right says, "Liberals or Democrats are bad" for some reason, it does not inspire me to believe that but to find out why and defend the left, if those remarks have no basis. If someone insinuates that "white conservatives" or "Christian whites" are bad, it inspires me to defend them because I already know as a whole, that is not the truth.

I think another problem with inflammatory remarks is that most people will tend to ignore any other good stuff and only remember the bad. In the aforementioned post Fred did pay Mike a very honest and good compliment, as a truly talented writer. Yet due to some of the other comments, it naturally went unnoticed.

Families reject Blair apology over Iraq dead


LONDON – Former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered an emotional apology for the deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, as he testified Friday to Britain's inquiry into the war.

The 57-year-old Blair, making a second appearance before the panel to clarify evidence he gave to the same panel a year ago, also urged Western leaders to confront a growing threat posed by Iran.

Addressing the five-member panel scrutinizing Britain's role in the unpopular war, Blair acknowledged that in phone calls and messages in 2002 — months before Parliament approved Britain's role in the conflict — he reassured U.S. President George W. Bush and told him: "You can count on us." THE "DOWNING STREET MEMO" CONFIRMS MUCH MORE INVOLVEMENT AND COMPLICITY THAN THAT. SEE BELOW...

Alongside his evidence, the inquiry published a previously unseen 2002 memo from Blair to his chief of staff, in which the leader called for a "gung-ho" approach toward Saddam Hussein's regime.

Critics of the war hope the inquiry will conclude Blair had been determined to back the U.S. invasion, whether or not it was supported by the public, Parliament or legal opinion. SOUNDS SO MUCH LIKE THE BUSH "MODUS OF OPERANDI" AS EVERYTHING WAS FORCED TO TRANSPIRE, IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS "CONSPIRACY" TO "DEFRAUD" AND UNDERMINE THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES SYSTEMATIC CHECKS & BALANCES.
BUSH ALSO VIOLATED HIS OATH TO ABIDE BY THE DECISIONS OF THE UN, AND GETTING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL BEFORE COMMITTING OUR NATION TO WAR.


Following his initial hearing, Blair was sharply criticized for suggesting he had no regrets over the decision to join the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"That was taken as my meaning that I had no regrets about the loss of life," Blair said Friday, his voice faltering with apparent emotion.

"I want to make it clear that of course I regret deeply and profoundly the loss of life, whether from our own armed forces, those of other nations, the civilians who helped people in Iraq or the Iraqis themselves," he said.

---> Some "bereaved relatives" heckled the former prime minister as he expressed his remorse.

Members of the audience shouted: "Too late, too late," while two women turned their backs on Blair, and then walked out. An official brought tissues into the hearing for another woman who burst into tears.

"Your lies killed my son, I hope you can live with yourself," Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon Gentle was killed while serving in Basra, southern Iraq, in 2006, shouted as Blair completed about four hours of testimony.

"You're a disgrace to your office and our country," Reg Keys, whose son was killed in 2003, shouted as Blair left.

A note prepared by a senior adviser in December 2001 — and published Friday — warned Blair that the legal case for military action would be "threadbare."

In the newly published March 2002 memo to his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, Blair — aware that the United States was pushing the case for regime change — said Britain "should be gung-ho on Saddam."

But he acknowledged it would be difficult to convince skeptics, and said that Iraq's weapons program — later to become a key justification for military action — didn't "seem obviously worse than 3 years ago."

"The persuasion job on this seems very tough. My own side are worried. Public opinion is fragile. International opinion — as I found at the EU — is pretty skeptical," Blair wrote.

"People believe we are only doing it to support the U.S., and they are only doing it to settle an old score," he wrote.

Blair's administration has been repeatedly criticized for allegedly overstating the case for war. In his note, the ex-leader told Powell ---> ****"we have to reorder our story and message," in order to sway opinion.

Under questioning, Blair angrily denied the decision to invade Iraq had emboldened neighboring Iran, or encouraged Tehran to press ahead with its attempts to develop nuclear weapons. ANYONE WITH A BRAIN WOULD CONCLUDE OTHERWISE, JUST AS WE ALL CITED HERE IN COUNTLESS DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO THE BUSH INVASION FOR "LEGACY" AND TITLE- WARTIME PRESIDENT.

"This is a looming and coming challenge," Blair said, calling for decisive action on Iran. "It is negative, it is destabilizing, it is supportive of terrorist groups. It is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East." THERE WASN'T ANY NEED FOR FORCED AGRESSION TO INDUCE COOPERATIVE PROGRESS PRIOR TO THE INVASION. IRAN WAS AIDING US, IN OUR ATTEMPTS IN AFGHANISTAN TO GET OSAMA AND RIDDING THE WORLD OF THE TALIBAN.
THE DEPARTURE AWAY FROM THE CLINTON DETENTE PROGRAMS CORRALING NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION WERE WORKING JUST FINE, EVEN WITH ISRAELS RESISTANCE TO SIGNING THE PACT.
THE PREMEDITATED AND SUDDEN INVASION IRAQ WAR TEAMED WITH THE INSOLENCE AND HUBRIS OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE WHICH SET IN WRITING THE NOTION THAT ANY AND EVERY ALLY COULD POTENTIALLY BE TOMORROWS ENEMY WOULD HAVE TO BE ANY NATIONS FEAR ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY TARGETED BY MEMBERS OF THE BUSH CABINET IN THEIR 1997- PNAC ARTICLES IN PRINCIPALS AS WELL AS THEIR OTHER MEMORANDUMS.


Britain's inquiry won't apportion blame, or establish criminal or civil liability. Its recommendations, expected by the end of year, will focus instead on how better to handle situations like the tense run-up to the war and the bloody attempt at nation-building that followed.

Earlier this week, British authorities refused to publish notes — seen by the panel — detailing discussions between Blair and Bush.

Blair insisted the decision had been made because leaders "have to be able to communicate in confidence," rather than to hide evidence of any pact.

"I was telling Bush, you can count on us, we're going to be with you in tackling this, but here are the difficulties," Blair said.

Blair largely deflected questions over apparent inconsistencies in his earlier evidence.

He stood by claims that France scuppered prospects for a U.N. Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the war — evidence which other officials have questioned. The ex-leader also insisted he was sincere in the belief that Iraq had been harboring weapons of mass destruction.
___________________________________


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! ... Et tu, Bushie???
Man Up!!!

PREMEDITATION- Costs in real life tragedy apart from "dollars" and "common sense"

1. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS ALREADY DEAD AND WOUNDED. (BOTH SIDES)
2. TENS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AFFLICTED WITH "PTSD" AS WELL AS MANY BEARING LIFETIME GRUDGES THAT CAN BE SPONTANEOUSLY ACTED UPON WHEN AGITATED.
3. 2-3 MILLION PEOPLE DISPLACED FROM THEIR HOMES[IRAQ]. *MAKE THAT 4MILLION WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE US.

We must all remember again that the invasion of Iraq was an "optional" war of choice that has led us into everything but, "security".
There are 15million more unemployed, 10million more "illegals"... $8.7trillion in additional debt, ... and the "war profiteering family" has been one of the "sole" beneficiarys still denying this nation its due commensurate recompense with its myriad of offshore global holdings granted full immunity from prosecution by US laws. Go figure!
4.Still untallied are the casualties from those "unmentionable" toxic components which bring our friend Buddy out of the woodwork that will befall our heroes. Sons, daughters, friends and relatives. DOES ANYONE HERE SEE ANY POSSIBILITY OF COMMON SENSE "WRONGFUL DEATH" "PAIN & SUFFERING" COMPENSATION COMING TO THE CHILDREN AND SURVIVORS THAT DOES NOT COME OUT OF TAX PAYER POCKETS? WHY CAN'T THE PROFITEERS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? WHY CAN'T HE WHO BROKE EVERY OATH PROMISED WHEN PETITIONING FOR HIS "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS OF RECKLESS ENDANGERMENTS?
see: Deregulation, premeditation, not paying for his wars, ...

****How is it possible that in a nation of laws defined and protected by our constitution that an orchestrator and facilitator of a "known" conspiracy can profit and retain 100% of ill gotten gains?

See: No bid contracts, THE BUSH TAX BREAKS, OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS, SELLING US PORTS & precious materials reources and profitting[Carlyle], privatizing army functions and outsourcing to mercks that cost taxpayers 5x the cost of enlisted personnel compunded by interest, creating loopholes for contract fraud, malfeasance, and statuatory sexual offenses against our female troops already in harms way- after the fact[HALLIBURTON, KBR, BLACKWATER]

STOLE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!
PAYROLL FRAUD!!!!
Taking almost three full years off, during wartime and times of extreme crisis.
Bush took 977 days OFF at just these two locations. [Does not include White House PR photo ops, lunches]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4728085-503544.html


August-Sept 3 2001 THE AUGUST MOMO
http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/

SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001
"...Bush’s actions on September 11 have been the subject of lively debate, mostly on the internet. Details reported that day and in the week after the attacks—both the media reports and accounts given by Bush himself—have changed radically over the past 18 months. Culling hundreds of reports from newspapers, magazines, and the internet has only made finding the “truth” of what happened and when it happened more confusing. In the changed political climate after 9/11, few have dared raise challenging questions about Bush’s actions. A journalist who said Bush was “flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare” and another who said Bush “skedaddled” were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)] We should have a concise record of where President Bush was throughout the day the US was attacked, but we do not."
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

Obama administration takes credit for Bush success in Iraq:

Feb. 11, 2010

In the midst of weak polls numbers, the Obama administration is grabbing on to anything that will boost the image of a flailing presidency. Everyone from President Obama to Vice President Joe Biden to White House Press Secretary Joe Gibbs are more than willing to say the successes in Iraq are due to Obama administration policies without crediting the President Bush's foundational groundwork, like the surge (which Obama and Biden opposed) and setting up the military drawdown in Iraq with Prime Minister Maliki before he left the White House. The Fox News Channel details further the Obama administration's attempt to call any success in Iraq their own, while trashing the Bush administration in the process.

It remains amusing that the White House will continue to repeat they "inherited" the Bush economy, when Obama's economic policies continue to fail, while embracing any victory in Iraq that rightfully belongs to the prior administration's work with the U.S. Military and Iraqi government.

This is sort of like beating up on the class nerd everyday, demand he does your class work, score straight A's, still beat up on the class nerd, and truly believe you are some kind of genius for getting good grades. Unfortunately for President Obama, the teachers are the American people. He has not paid attention to them, and stealing the credit for someone else's hard work will not bring up his poll numbers.

Al Qaeda in Iraq:
What Tony Blair knows (and Barack Obama doesn’t).

September 27, 2010

In a campaign speech on July 14, 2007, Senator Barack Obama railed against the Iraq war and President Bush’s obstinate refusal to end it. “We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield,” Obama said. In another speech a few weeks later, he said, “The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq—which didn’t exist before our invasion—and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.”

Obama’s argument was by no means unique. It was fashionable at the time to claim that Iraq was in the midst of a “civil war” and, therefore, a surge of American troops (which Obama opposed) would unnecessarily place American lives at risk. Obama’s major rivals in the 2008 presidential campaign, including Senator Hillary Clinton, made similar arguments.

The claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion” was not Obama’s alone, either. Through two presidential elections (2004 and 2008) and countless debates about the war, the Democrats and their surrogates have made this allegation repeatedly. It is flat wrong.

The latest account to contradict the Democrats’ talking points is that of former British prime minister Tony Blair. In his new autobiography, A Journey: My Political Life, Blair is unapologetic about the decision to topple Saddam’s regime. But he is understandably disturbed by the violence that followed.

“I can’t regret the decision to go to war for the reason I will give,” Blair writes. “I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded, and that too is part of the responsibility.” The “nightmare” is the Iraqi insurgency, which Blair rightly blames on al Qaeda (and Iran).

To be sure, Blair does not contend that Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda made regime change necessary. “[T]he assessment of the threat was not based on Saddam’s active sponsorship of terrorism or terrorist groups,” he writes. As Blair sees it, Saddam’s Iraq was not “the same threat as Afghanistan” because there was no direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. In addition, British intelligence officials thought the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was “hazy.”

Naysayers will undoubtedly seize upon these passages as further proof that Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. But contrary to Obama and the Democrats, Blair also says “there was strong intelligence that al Qaeda were allowed into Iraq by Saddam in mid-2002 (with severe consequences later).”

Blair elaborates:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blair’s testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.

Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaos—and ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war.

In Baghdad, Tenet says, Zarqawi’s cell found “a comfortable and secure environment” to funnel supplies and fighters to “up to two hundred” al Qaeda fighters who had relocated to camps in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq beginning in late 2001. The camps were run by an al Qaeda affiliate named Ansar al Islam (AI), which would later play a significant role in the Iraqi insurgency. The CIA found that AI was experimenting with poisons on animals and, “in at least one case, on one of their own associates.”

Prior to the war, the CIA got much about Iraq wrong. But here is an instance where the agency got something right.

Less than one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case for war with Saddam’s Iraq based on the CIA’s intelligence, Osama bin Laden decided to make his own case for war. Bin Laden, however, was on Saddam’s side.

In an audiotape released on February 11, 2003, bin Laden explained why. “It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one,” bin Laden argued. “There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims’ interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels.  .  .  .  There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.”

Bin Laden’s message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist “infidel,” but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam’s forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a “convergence of interests” as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda “with open arms” and “strictly and directly” controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaeda’s earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.

Muhammad al Masari, a Saudi who operates a known al Qaeda front in London and has helped recruit suicide bombers to fight in Iraq, has offered a similar account. In his book The Secret History of al Qaeda, Abdel Bari Atwan recounts a conversation he had with al Masari. Saddam “saw that Islam would be key to the formation of a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion,” according to al Masari. Thus, Saddam funded the relocation of al Qaeda operatives to Iraqi soil. Al Masari says that Saddam also ordered officers in the Iraqi military to purchase “small plots of land from  .  .  .   farmers in Sunni areas” and then bury “arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.”

There is much more evidence in this vein, including, for instance, Iraqi intelligence documents recovered after the fall of Saddam. Some of the documents demonstrate that Saddam called on hundreds of terrorists from around the Middle East to come to Iraq in the months leading up to the war. Many of them had been trained by Saddam’s regime beginning in the late 1990s. In early 2003, Saddam opened his border with Syria to allow this stream of terrorists in. In one recovered document, Saddam ordered his military to “utilize” Arab suicide bombers against the invading forces. This was almost certainly a reference to al Qaeda.

All of this may sound like a belated attempt to relitigate the case for war. It is not. Reasonable people can differ on how to handle Saddam’s prewar sponsorship of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Tony Blair does not present Saddam’s terrorist ties as a major justification for war. By the same token, it is simply false to claim, as Obama and the Democrats have, that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion.”

More important, the Democrats’ politically convenient antiwar arguments have obscured a deeper truth. The war for Iraq was clearly part of the broader war against al Qaeda. Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda made it so. This is undoubtedly what Blair meant when he wrote that Saddam’s decision to host al Qaeda inside Iraq had “severe consequences” and that Britain and the United States probably “should have paid more attention” to this intelligence.

In the end, Blair laments the fact that he did not do more to connect the struggle for Iraq with the broader war against Islamic extremism. Indeed, the Democrats still pretend that Iraq was a distraction.

When President Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq on August 31, he referred to al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq only in passing. Obama argued that “because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense.” The implication was that the war in Iraq was the “wrong battlefield.”

That is not how Blair sees it. Al Qaeda and “militant Islam” were the source of the “mess” inside Iraq. These were the same forces “we were fighting everywhere,” Blair writes. “Fighting them in Iraq was not therefore a diversion from the real battle. It had become part of it.”

Tony Blair urges West to take action on Iran:

Jan 21, 2011

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a passionate plea on Friday for the West to use force if necessary against Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

Speaking at a London inquiry into the Iraq War where he was having to explain his decision to join the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Blair said the time had now come to "get our heads out of the sand" and take action against Iran.

"I say this with all the passion I possibly can," said Blair, now an envoy for the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers -- the United States, Russia, the EU and the United Nations.

The West had to stop believing it was responsible for the actions of Iran or extremists, he said.

"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and, if necessary, force."

Talks are being held in Istanbul between western leaders and Iran over a standoff about its nuclear aims. [nLDE70K0AF].

Blair said he saw Iran's negative influence everywhere, supporting terrorism and impeding progress in the Middle East peace process. U.S. President Barack Obama's offer of a hand of friendship in 2009 had been roundly rejected, he said.

"A journalist who said Bush was “flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare” and another who said Bush “skedaddled” were fired"


Of course they were fired! What kind of journalist gets paid for reporting sheer fantasy??? Any one could do that...shoemakers, bartenders or cookie salesmen, just look at how well you do John at making shit up and reporting fantastic stories almost every day that others invent! Its not that hard, but no one should be allowed to earn a salary as a journalist while writing and reporting excerpts from novels instead. By the way, if you believe that it should be public knowledge what evasive security measures are taken by secret service in regards to the president while the country is under attack, then my long time suspicions about you always rooting for the enemy have been right on the mark.

Ok, Bill you've had your say on the matter but, now let's see what the rest of America saw and perceived with their own two eyes without the mass media spin and deception.
The first video covers just a few of the most obvious bases especially in light of Bush-Lite later providing the Saud getaway while grounding the entire American air fleet to insure their protection. Furthered and compounded by his use of Presidential Order demanding the deletion of the most damning evidences of Saud complicity in both the funding of Bin Laden and the network of many of the same Carlyle guests that funded his operation and who were led away on that infamous Raytheon getaway junket.

Video#2, - Bush caught in his own lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related
NO LIVE COVERAGE AT ALL OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE WTC- SO HOW DID BUSH SEE IT. Explain, Bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related

Have you ever watched the CBS program LIE TO ME or do you know how to perceive body language? Watch this close up on GWB- ...one ---> BAD ACTOR. See the worried GWB cover his ass just like any other prep, pursed lips , dry mouth, tongue to corner of the mouth when questioned by the press-... then rushing out and quashing further debate and inquiry shortly thereafter in press conference prematurely calling for the denouncement of those presenting "conspiracy" in their accumulated compiled evidences. Then there were the Ashcroft tactics, going accumulating data and going through the refuse of "persons of interest"... etc.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

WEEKS AFTER THE WTC HIT ---> MOLTEN METAL??? = THERMITE!!!
Look it up, genius. While your at it, try to find out for yourself who are the "only people" who have access to it. If you do a thorough investigation you will find the Bin Laden family is one, defense and military organizations are the others.

****9/11 Coincidences - YIKES!!! WHILE YOU ARE AT IT let's see you explain this as well. NORAD RUNNING A DRILL ON 9/11 SIMULATING A WTC ATTACK. CHENEY A CIVILIAN PLACED IN CHARGE OF NORAD- BY RUMSFELD. TAPES OF 9/11 ORDERED SHREDDED. Bush lies, again, again, ...again. Condi's "who could have imagined..." CONFIRMS THE LIE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g&feature=related

I'VE BACKED UP MY EVIDENCES SEVERAL TIMES W/ ACTUAL FOOTAGE AND CERTIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION by experts, and those on the scene that eclipse my rather limited scope that is based on the vast amount of compiled evidences and knowledge of the WTC complex and its structural composition.
NOW, LET'S SEE "PROOFS" THAT ADD SOME CREDIBILITY TO YOUR INCREDULOUS STATEMENTS.

Do you want more real investigative journalism, or are you satisfied with your flimsy red neck op-ed cut & paste junk in this court of "astute" and "rational" public opinion?

Bill F: WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-gxFAU3M0&feature=channel

JULY 2OOO- HALLIBURTON CONFERENCE ON PROFITABILITY OPPORTUNITIES IN IRAQ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TxqoMOp36c&feature=related

1998- PNAC ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE PRESIDENT CLINTON TO GO INTO IRAQ.

THIS IS WHAT YOUR HERO THINKS OF HIS OWN MISSION IN HIS OWN WORDS CAUGHT ON FILM. Further evidence that the War on Terrorism just another scam to enable profiteers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztKKuB2nJa0&feature=channel

NEW FILMED DOCUMENTED EVIDENCES
****9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

****WTC Brought Down by Bombs, Not Jet Fuel Fire!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqcp7k&feature=related

HISTORY CANNOT BE ALTERED TO FIT YOUR ASSIGNMENT HERE.
CONSIDER IT A FULL TIME JOB.

Now, please tell the rest of America the amount of time it would take to deliver THERMITE to a congested Wall ST area, already clogged dead with no moving traffic. Then to go up all of those buildings, coordinate, wire and set the charges flawlessly.
You can use any previous model of controlled demolition and assertain the fact that these operations take weeks. IT CANNOT BE DONE IN MINUTES.

SO ONCE AGAIN WE ARE LEFT TO GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE, AND THE PLAUSIBILITY THAT THESE SET-UPS WERE DONE IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO 9/11 AS STATED BY SEVERAL WITNESSING EMPLOYEES AT TOWERS 1-2 WHO HEARD AND EXPERIENCED OFFICE SHAKING CONSTRUCTION FLOORS ABOVE THEM IN THE LEAD UP TO 9/11.
Kindly take the time to inform us Bill, who was in charge of WTC security until Sept 10th, 2001. Exactly one day before CIA investigator of Saud involvement in terrorist activities and thorn in the side of you know whom John O'Neill took over. Also not so coincidentally John O'Neill was one of the 2 CIA agents killed that very day.
Amazing at it may seem, not a single other CIA, FBI or Secret Service member appeared top be involved in the heroic actions of that day though countless offices and agencies ringed the complex.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Where have we seen evidence of similarity? That's right you guessed it. The Timothy McVeigh bombing of the FBI headquarters where 22 members out of 27 from one department curiously found their way to be out of their office that time too.

Now, put your hands together and clasp them to your ears so that your brain can fully concentrate w/ no chance of outside influence or distractions.
Put everything in time order and consider the plausibility of what Bush/Condi/Cheney/Halliburton etal revealed either prior and after the fact.
Realize that all the lies that where made after the fact wouldn't have been necessary; ... except for what? Yes that's right. LIES, & BLATANT LIES are only necessary in cover-ups.

THAT'S RIGHT BILL I TOOK OFFENSE AT YOUR CHEAP ACCUSATIONS. THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT NOW- DEFENDER.

No windows on flight 175

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc&NR=1

THIS IS YOUR PET GOAT, NOT MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJekVOlme6I

See the blank expression. Nothing going on there, ya think?

THIS IS YOUR PET GOAT, NOT MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJekVOlme6I

See the blank expression. Nothing going on there, ya think?
My only question here is how did "Shooter" get the only free pass without getting at the very least a dishonorable mention?
1. his 1992 foreign policy strtategy.
2.his organization PNAC that in 1997 committed both the plan and most of the key members and players within the Bush Administrations signatures to paper.
3. his Taliban who aided Osama. His Taliban who were let off the hook with the invasion of Iraq. Again his Taliban with whom our current administration was told to reincorporate.
4. CHENEY WHO WAS AT THE CONTROLS OF NORAD ON SEPTEMBER 11TH while "lil Bush" was sent off to kindergarten.
DICK CHENEY WHO GAVE US ENRON, $4.50 A GALLON OIL, WATERBOARDING, OUTING A CIA AGENT, AND THE PHANTOM 4TH BRANCH OF GOV'T THAT PROVIDED FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF EVERY CRIME HE COMMITTED, and the Halliburton get out of jail free Headquarters that evades US jurisdiction.

Cheney's victory:
January 21, 2011

It detains almost 200 people at Guantanamo Bay, the facility that Amnesty International calls "a global symbol for injustice and abuse."

It will resort to military tribunals for those detainees it chooses to try. Dozens of the rest will simply be held indefinitely -- international opinion be damned.

It relies on Gen. David Petraeus to turn around a difficult war of counterinsurgency. He's "an extraordinary warrior for the American people," it insists.

It surges American troops into the field, disregarding American public opinion and the opposition of the left. It persists even though the war has been dragging on for years in a country beset by ethnic divisions, a long history of war and repression, and weak, corrupt political leadership.

It warns that this is "tough business" and "progress goes slow," but is stalwart nonetheless: We are "going on offense" in a war that is part of a global effort "to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies."

It refuses to heed the protests of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

It fails to forge a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or even stop the Israelis from building settlements.

It is not talking to North Korea or Iran.

It believes it has the right to kidnap people in the tactic known as "rendition," without due process.

It targets people for assassination, without due process.

It rains missiles down on countries, Pakistan and Yemen, with which we aren't at war and profess to be friendly.

It reserves the right to assassinate American citizens, and has targeted one US citizen for killing in Yemen. He's a Muslim religious leader not indicted for any crimes, let alone convicted of any.

It embraces the Patriot Act and its repeated reauthorization without hesitation. It ignores critics of the law like former Amnesty International USA chair Chip Pitts, who warns of "the institutionalization of this and other egregious infringements on freedom."

It relies on the National Security Agency for a sweeping program of terrorist surveillance and brushes aside all legal challenges to it.

It bristles at congressional interference with, as the attorney general puts it, "the authority of the executive branch to determine when or where to prosecute terror suspects."

It is prone to what advocates of government transparency criticize as the overclassification of government documents.

It won't tolerate unauthorized leaks, prosecuting a host of whistle-blowers.

It invokes the "state secrets doctrine" to get court cases it finds inconvenient dismissed, including one by former US detainees alleging abuse.

It issues signing statements challenging parts of laws passed by Congress, in a practice that lawmakers of both parties have criticized and the American Bar Association calls unconstitutional.

It outrages civil libertarians. They denounce it for "making impunity for torture the law of the land" (the ACLU). They inveigh against it for asserting that "the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws" (Electronic Frontier Foundation). They lament its policies for their "repressiveness" (Glenn Greenwald of Salon).

While it is attacked by the left for its robust assertions of executive power in a global War on Terror, it is defended by Dick Cheney for the same.

It advocates democracy and human rights in sweeping terms: "Societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful and the world is more just when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being."

It prods the Arab world to reform, issuing a blunt warning that its "foundations are sinking into the sand." And it lectures China for violating the rights of its people.

It flatly boasts that we are "the greatest nation on Earth."

But enough about the Obama administration . . .

Obama’s Gitmo Defeat:
Finally, common sense has won out.

January 21, 2011


President Barack Obama, once a sharp critic of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the use of military tribunals to prosecute detainees, is now planning to do an about-face and proceed with his own military trials. After encountering numerous upsets in fulfilling his campaign promise to close the facility and end military tribunals, this latest acquiescence from the Obama team likely indicates the end to the hope that either will be achieved in the president’s first term. A vindicating development for the Bush administration, this sudden turnaround represents a great victory for the American people, who sustained the opposition to the facility’s closure.

A New York Times story reported on Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to clear the way for new cases against about 30 of the 173 prisoners still held in “Gitmo.” (Still more detainees will face trial in the future, while some will be released in other countries.) This legal green light would allow for new charges against detainees for the first time under the Obama administration.

This latest development in Obama’s long-standing hate-hate relationship with Guantanamo has been construed as a response to a bill passed in Congress that banned the transfer of prisoners to the United States for any reason, including trials. Civilian trials for detainees came to a standstill early last year after popular opposition arose over the administration’s attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a high-ranking 9/11 plotter, in New York City.

Obama’s latest action regarding detainee trials stands in stark contrast to his hasty election promise to dismantle the Military Commissions Act. The president had even once termed the military commission system “an enormous failure,” vowing to have the detainees’ cases transferred to civilian courts. To indicate the high priority he assigned Gitmo, on his inauguration day, Obama even signed a 120-day delay of all trials in progress at the facility.

People have also not forgotten Obama’s other ill-considered election promise to close the detention facility within a year of being elected. And again, Obama indicated the urgency of this promise by signing an executive order to close the facility only two days after entering office.

Obama’s failure to keep his word, however, was not the result of cheap electioneering people have become so accustomed to from politicians. Once in office, Obama appeared to rethink the wisdom of his ambitions after getting a glance at the remaining Gitmo terrorists’ files and confronting the great difficulty of dealing with them in a way that would not recklessly endanger the public. Numerous terrorists (many released during the Bush administration) have already gone back to terrorist enclaves since their release into other countries, and the overall rate of recidivism is very high. Extremely dangerous detainees, numbering some several dozen, will likely be detained indefinitely.

Early on, the threat posed by these problematic detainees made it apparent that Guantanamo would not be closed any time soon. House Democrats also signaled to the administration they did not want any al-Qaeda members in the United States, especially in the districts they represented. After years of hypocritically criticizing the Bush administration about the Gunatanamo facility, when they had the chance, congressional Democrats refused to vote the money to close it.

The decision to resume military tribunals will come as a great relief to the intelligence community, which civilian terrorist trials would have seriously jeopardized. In civilian trials, all information regarding the government’s case, including the names of informants and intelligence gathering methods, would have to be revealed. Such important data, normally kept secret or within the confines of a military tribunal, could then find its ways into the wrong hands.

This has already happened once in America in the civilian trial of the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At least one of the documents turned over to Rahman’s lawyers found its way to al-Qaeda, which at that time had its headquarters in the Sudan.

“That document contained a list of people who were on the government’s radar screen – and thus alerted al Qaeda to the possibility of surveillance,” the Strategy Page reported.

But a major reason to rejoice over the tribunal decision is that it rules out the possibility of crucial evidence being thrown for having been obtained by “questionable methods.” People were shocked last year when a Gitmo prisoner, on trial in New York courtroom, had all but one of 285 counts against him dismissed by a civilian jury. The prisoner, Ahmed Ghailani, accused of helping bomb the US embassies in Africa, nearly walked out of the courtroom a free man, which, according to a Wall Street Journal story, caused the plans for more civilian trials to grind to a halt.

According to the New York Times, one of the detainees facing trial under the new initiative, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of helping plan the USS Cole bombing in 2000, fits into the same category as Ahmed Ghailani. Al-Nashiri was one of the detainees who was subjected to “waterboarding” and claims to have undergone other harsh interrogation methods. According to the Times, Nashiri’s lawyer is planning to “highlight Mr. Nashiri’s treatment in CIA custody.”

Unhappy with White House’s decision to move forward with military trials are Obama’s left wing supporters. The American Civil Liberties Union, which views all detainees as victims of human rights abuses, is already calling Nashiri’s appearance before a military tribunal “a sham trial” and has criticized the Obama administration’s reforms of the military justice system, saying in a statement, “[W]e have seen nothing but mounting evidence that the military commissions are incapable of delivering justice.”

But deep down such leftist critics are probably even angrier and more deeply disappointed by the fact that by retaining the military tribunal system and keeping Guantanamo open, the president they supported is proving right the president they hated, George W. Bush. Fortunately — at least for the time being — the national interest has won the day.

John,You Want Lies?

How A Progressive Socialist Gets to Be President Of The USA:
----------------------------------------

The Lies of Obama:

Jan 21st, 2010

When politicians are caught out in lies, their supporters often resort to the old cliché: all politicians lie. But that is itself a lie: most don’t. Even among those who do, there are enormous differences in the importance and frequency of the lies. And it is surely now clear that this nation has a far from routine problem in the scale and regularity of President Obama’s lying.

When politicians lie they are usually trying to avoid political damage, or to make themselves look good. Bill Clinton lied (and got himself impeached) to save himself from embarrassment about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia to enhance her non-existent foreign affairs profile. Richard Nixon was forced from office because he lied to cover up his involvement in a political dirty trick. John Kerry lied about his Vietnam combat experience to blunt his anti-military reputation. But Barack Obama’s lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go the heart of legislation and governance, and so seriously undermine trust in government. His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing. The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen. But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.

The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming:

* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.

* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.

* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.

* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.

* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.

* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.

* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

* Obama had promised that he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.

* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.

* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.

* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.

* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)

* Obama claimed that Caterpillar’s CEO had told him that Caterpillar would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Caterpillar would in fact be laying off more workers.

* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.

* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.

* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.

* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.

* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.

* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.

* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.

* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.

This is an extraordinary record of serial mendacity. One or two instances might charitably be regarded as rash promises later regretted, or as the wishful thinking of someone who had not thought through the implications of what he was saying. But when it happens again and again—and my 30 instances are by no means exhaustive—only one judgment seems possible: this is the record of a habitual, shameless liar, a man who will say anything to get what he wants. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, goes the old saying. But scores of times? How shameful is that for our society when this disgraceful record is never the subject of a reproachful editorial in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CBS news? Richard Nixon was removed from office, and Bill Clinton impeached for a single lie. Who could look at Obama’s record without concluding that his lying is in a completely different league to theirs?

President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics. When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?

Bill F: These op-eds you paste here are nothing more than wallpaper. Not a single visible sign of a thought process that adresses the topics that were the central focal point of your derision and irrational obsession with fawning over Fearless Cheerleader interfering with rational common sense- now was there.
You might want to try again, employing your own rationale combined with factual evidences that can refute the statements I've made. If you can't do that after 10yrs of searching then why not concede that patriotism is not measured by blind faith acceptance of any political leader as a idol worthy of worship.
FACT IS BUSH WAS SO BAD THAT HE NEARLY SINGLEHANDEDLY DESTROYED THE ENTIRE US ECONOMY AS WELL AS OUR ALLIANCES ALONG WITH PLUNGING 20MILLION MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN FAMILIES INTO DIRE POVERTY.
THE COST OF THE BUSH RUSHES TO PLUNGE US INTO WAR UNFUNDED, HIS HEALTHCARE PLAN UNFUNDED, AS WELL AS NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND UNFUNDED HAD BUSH LEAVING OFFICE WITH AN $8.7TRILLION DOLLAR TAB THAT HE LEFT AT OUR DOORSTEPS.
IF HE AND HIS FAMILY OR THEIR HOLDINGS WERE THE BENEFICIARIES OF ANY OF HIS ELECTIVE WARS OF CHOICE, THE NO BID CONTRACTS THAT AROSE FROM THAT NEW FOR PROFIT VENUE CLOSED OFF TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING, OR SKEWED FOREIGN POLICY DEALINGS & DECISIONS THAT POSITIONED CARLYLE, KBR, HALLIBURTON TO BILK AND DISMANTLE AMERICA INTO TENUOUS POSITIONS- THEN IT IS NOT ONLY RATIONAL BUT JUST THAT THOSE PROFITS OUGHT TO BE FORFEITED AS A PURE MEASURE OF SINCERE AND CONTRITE OF SHARED SUFFERING FOR 8YRS OF IDIOTIC AND ALMOST INFANTILE DECISION MAKING.

Saving Obama from Himself :

Obama’s campaign attacks against Bush now apply to his presidency.

June 24, 2010


Do you remember candidate Barack Obama offering his hope-and-change platitudes in front of the fake Greek columns during the Democratic convention? Or, earlier, pontificating at the Victory Monument in Berlin?

Why didn’t an old cigar-chomping Democratic pro take him aside and warn him about offending Nemesis? She is the dreaded goddess who brings divine retribution in ironic fashion to overweening arrogance.

Or maybe a friend could have whispered to Senator Obama to tone it down when he was merciless in damning the Bush administration for its supposedly slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

Obama railed that Bush showed “unconscionable ineptitude.” Obama further charged that Bush’s response was “achingly slow,” a result of “passive indifference,” and that his team was rife with “corruption and cronyism.”

Those phrases now apply to Obama himself, as he seems lost amid his own disaster — eerily, in about the same Gulf environs. Adding insult to injury, a recent poll revealed that Louisiana residents thought Bush had done a better job with Katrina than Obama has with BP.

Couldn’t one of Obama’s many handlers have warned him to ignore the media’s tingling-leg gaga worship, or their nonsense that Obama is “a god”?

Didn’t Team Obama ever suspect that such an unhinged press, in the manner of a Greek chorus, could just as easily sour on their prophet once his poll ratings fell as quickly as they had soared?

Couldn’t David Axelrod have admonished his candidate to cut out the creepy stuff about himself and his throng being “the ones we’ve been waiting for”? Why was there a need for all that megalomaniac hocus-pocus about slowing the “rise of the oceans” and healing the planet? Sure enough, Nemesis ensured that instead of Lord Poseidon lowering the seas, Obama is a smoky Hephaestus fouling them up.
Did the Nobel Committee members really think they were doing their post-national, post-racial heartthrob any good by giving him a peace prize even though he lacked any record of foreign-policy accomplishment? Didn’t his Scandinavian admirers grasp that prophets suffer the wages of hypocrisy far more readily than mere mortals when things go badly, as they inevitably do? Jay Leno is now more likely to use the phrase “Nobel Laureate Obama” than a serious diplomat.

For nearly two years, Senator, Candidate, and Freshman President Obama ridiculed his predecessor — as if running the executive were as easy a job as community organizing, serving a couple of years in the Senate, or campaigning for president.

But now the once-enthralled electorate is starting to tire of the hope-and-change platitudes, and even of the easy blame-gaming of his predecessor, mostly because almost everything Obama once demagogued is in weird fashion now coming back to haunt him.

Obama easily damned everything from Guantanamo Bay to Predator drone attacks in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, only to adopt those policies and more from Bush.

He sermonized about the morals of a corrupt Republican Congress, only to keep quiet about earmarks, lobbyists, and the sins of Democratic cronies such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Charles Rangel.

Deficits were once supposed proof of Bush’s out-of-control spending. What does far greater red ink say about Obama?

If only swaggering George W. Bush could have been smart enough to reach out to Cuba, Iran, and Syria. Then Obama did just that, only to make bad things even worse.

And remember the Obama comment about an arrogant Bush turning off our allies? Why, then, does an aloof Obama seem to alienate them even more?

The reality of Barack Obama is that he was an inexperienced community organizer with an undistinguished record as a Senate newcomer. A perfect storm of popular anger at eight years of George Bush, a lackluster John McCain campaign, Obama’s landmark candidacy as a black American, a disingenuous campaign promising centrist and bipartisan governance, and the financial meltdown in 2008 got the relatively untried and unknown Obama elected.

Most mortals in Obama’s position would have treaded lightly. They would have kept promises, steered a moderate course, and listened more than lectured until they won over the public with concrete achievement.

But headstrong tragic figures do not do that. They neither welcome in critics nor would listen to them if they did. They impute their unforeseen temporary success to their own brilliance — and expect it to continue forever. So would-be gods set themselves up for a fall far harder than what happens to the rest of us.

That’s about where we are now, with our president playing a character right out of Greek tragedy who, true to form, is railing about the unfairness of it all.

"FACT IS BUSH WAS SO BAD THAT HE NEARLY SINGLEHANDEDLY DESTROYED THE ENTIRE US ECONOMY AS WELL AS OUR ALLIANCES ALONG WITH PLUNGING 20MILLION MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN FAMILIES INTO DIRE POVERTY."

NOT A FACT!
This describes John's idiotic, no brain fantasy facts only. Only after having personally elected your leftist dream president, Barack Obama over John McCain and putting the Democrat's socialistic - leftist wish list into action for over two years, with an orgy of "out of control mammoth spending" on wasted and counter productive give away programs has the scenario above been achieved. Where has the Democrat's whimp along, foreign policy got us? The USA is the laughing stock of the world in the eyes of all of our adversaries as well as having turned our backs on our allies! I usually don't respond to your idiocies as you've been beyond hope or reason since you've been posting here and have classified you as an enormous waste of time, with evidently nothing else to do, leading a very boring retirement and blaming others for your own unfortunate handiwork.

This post appears to recieve a great deal of visitors. How do you promote it? It offers a nice unique spin on things. I guess having something authentic or substantial to talk about is the most important thing.

Would you be curious about exchanging links?

I used to be more than happy to search out this net-site.I wished to thanks on your time for this glorious learn!! I undoubtedly having fun with each little little bit of it and I've you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

What a lovely day for a 396231! SCK was here

What a lovely day for a 4451203! SCK was here

I am often to blogging and i really appreciate your content. The article has really peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your site and keep checking for new information.

Guten Tag! Netter Weblog! Informationsseite Fatburner Supplements sind behilflich beim raschen Abbau von Depotfett! Vielen Dank!

For me it's a truely good point of view. I meet individuals who rather say the things they suppose others wish to hear. Good and well crafted! I'll come back to your website without a doubt!

some truly rattling work on behalf of the owner of this website , utterly outstanding content material .

This design is steller! You most certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Fantastic job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

I couldn't currently have asked for a much better blog. You are ever present to present excellent guidance, going instantly to the point for quick understanding of your subscribers. You're surely a terrific expert in this subject matter. Thanks a ton for being there visitors like me.

I agree with your - Would You Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform?, great post.

Itˇ¦s actually a cool and helpful piece of information. I am glad that you just shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.