Nobody deserves tread marks more than Nancy does ...
Leon Panetta (Obama's choice to head the CIA) does the slapdown.
Panetta Urges CIA Staff to Focus on Mission, Tune Out 'New Decibel Level' in D.C. on Interrogations
President Obama's CIA director on Friday urged agency employees to concentrate on their mission and not get sidetracked by the high-volume argument in Washington spurred a day earlier when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to Congress.
"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress," CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a letter publicly released.
"My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country," he wrote. "We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is-even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Panetta's letter was released as the debate grew over what Pelosi knew, when she knew it and whether she complained about it if she was so bothered by it.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that those briefing her in September 2002 gave her inaccurate and incomplete information. Pelosi's office issued a statement Thursday saying Pelosi had been told in September 2002 that waterboarding, or simulated drowning, had not been used, but was going to be used in the future.
The timeline is the basis for the speaker's claim that the CIA lied to Congress -- because the CIA has confirmed later that it used waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002.
Panetta repeated in his letter to CIA staff that the agency's response to congressional inquiries show that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
The White House refused to be drawn into the debate Friday, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declining to weigh in on whether the CIA lied to Pelosi.
Friday, May 15, 2009
"Grandpa Got A Check" -- Stimulus Checks for Dead People
According to the news tonight, the Treasury Dept. has been sending out $250 stimulus checks, including thousands to dead people.
One man, who has been dead for 35 years, got a check.
I thought the Dems only let dead people vote ... now they send them money ??
One man, who has been dead for 35 years, got a check.
I thought the Dems only let dead people vote ... now they send them money ??
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The IowaHawk Obama Roast not seen on TV
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/i-guess-you-had-to-be-there.html
caution ... lots of cussing ....
caution ... lots of cussing ....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
But then again, Eric Holder still wants to let terrorists roam free in the USA
'Mr. Attorney General, a trained terrorist is a terrorist.' [Andy McCarthy]
One might have hoped it would not be necessary to make this point to the attorney general of the United States. But, given that hope has often been disappointed these last hundred or so days, Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) elucidates the obvious in yet another letter to AG Holder regarding the Uighur detainees, whom Holder and the administration are planning to free inside the United States:
I have grave concerns that you are playing fast and loose with the definition of “terrorist” and may be misleading the American people regarding its plans to release the Uyghur detainees into the U.S. Let me be very clear – the Uyghurs held at Guantanamo Bay are trained terrorists and members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a designated terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda, as designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations (U.N.). Whether their intended victims were Chinese or Americans, a trained terrorist is a terrorist.
As I discussed last week, the "trained terrorist" piece is crucial because, under federal immigration law, alien terrorists and aliens who have received training in terrorist camps may not be admitted into the United States.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIxOGJlYTdjOTc0YThiNzM5OTYyODc3ZWYxMjA3MmE=
One might have hoped it would not be necessary to make this point to the attorney general of the United States. But, given that hope has often been disappointed these last hundred or so days, Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) elucidates the obvious in yet another letter to AG Holder regarding the Uighur detainees, whom Holder and the administration are planning to free inside the United States:
I have grave concerns that you are playing fast and loose with the definition of “terrorist” and may be misleading the American people regarding its plans to release the Uyghur detainees into the U.S. Let me be very clear – the Uyghurs held at Guantanamo Bay are trained terrorists and members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a designated terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda, as designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations (U.N.). Whether their intended victims were Chinese or Americans, a trained terrorist is a terrorist.
As I discussed last week, the "trained terrorist" piece is crucial because, under federal immigration law, alien terrorists and aliens who have received training in terrorist camps may not be admitted into the United States.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIxOGJlYTdjOTc0YThiNzM5OTYyODc3ZWYxMjA3MmE=
Obama ticks off the far left w/ flip flop; but makes the right call
The President's Reversal [Peter Wehner]
President Obama has done a good and important thing by reversing himself on a previous commitment. According to Politico:
In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department had already agreed to release the photos by May 28 in response to a lawsuit, but Obama is shifting course. “Last week, the President met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the DOD photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court,” said a White House official who asked not to be named. “At the end of that meeting, the President directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds,” the official said…. “the President strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan,” the White House official said.
What motivated Obama to take this action is impossible to know. Divining our own motivations on things we do is hard enough; trying to judge the motivations of others is far more difficult. All I can say is that the president has done the right thing — if in my judgment the blindingly obvious thing — in this instance. To have released these photos would have been a reckless and irresponsible act, one he would have quickly come to regret. There are those on the Left who will be unhappy with Obama; he should treat their unhappiness as a badge of honor. Whether on the matter of detainees at Guantanamo Bay or the war in Iraq or the release of these photographs, Obama is finding out — as does every Oval Office occupant — that the duties of being president are not simple as campaign slogans.
Obama's Reversal [Jonah Goldberg]
I agree with the general consensus that President Obama has made the right call here, albeit later than he should have. The press's appetite has been fueled in ways it wouldn't have been if he'd made the right call from the outset. Moreover, I think Obama's decision debunks the claim that he had to release the torture memos either. Recall that lots of Obama's defenders, including Obama, wanted it both ways on the release of those memos. They wanted to argue he was courageous for his decision, but that the release was inevitable anyway because of an ACLU FOIA lawsuit. Well, he could have fought then, as he's decided to fight now. Right?
Obama's War Now? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The ACLU is not happy. From a press release:
"The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.
"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.
"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos – as painful as it might be – is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less."
President Obama has done a good and important thing by reversing himself on a previous commitment. According to Politico:
In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department had already agreed to release the photos by May 28 in response to a lawsuit, but Obama is shifting course. “Last week, the President met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the DOD photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court,” said a White House official who asked not to be named. “At the end of that meeting, the President directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds,” the official said…. “the President strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan,” the White House official said.
What motivated Obama to take this action is impossible to know. Divining our own motivations on things we do is hard enough; trying to judge the motivations of others is far more difficult. All I can say is that the president has done the right thing — if in my judgment the blindingly obvious thing — in this instance. To have released these photos would have been a reckless and irresponsible act, one he would have quickly come to regret. There are those on the Left who will be unhappy with Obama; he should treat their unhappiness as a badge of honor. Whether on the matter of detainees at Guantanamo Bay or the war in Iraq or the release of these photographs, Obama is finding out — as does every Oval Office occupant — that the duties of being president are not simple as campaign slogans.
Obama's Reversal [Jonah Goldberg]
I agree with the general consensus that President Obama has made the right call here, albeit later than he should have. The press's appetite has been fueled in ways it wouldn't have been if he'd made the right call from the outset. Moreover, I think Obama's decision debunks the claim that he had to release the torture memos either. Recall that lots of Obama's defenders, including Obama, wanted it both ways on the release of those memos. They wanted to argue he was courageous for his decision, but that the release was inevitable anyway because of an ACLU FOIA lawsuit. Well, he could have fought then, as he's decided to fight now. Right?
Obama's War Now? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The ACLU is not happy. From a press release:
"The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.
"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.
"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos – as painful as it might be – is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less."
Monday, May 11, 2009
I Laughed at Pelosi & Reid's expense:
NY Post sports pages today:
CBS TV Golf analyst David Feherety was forced to apologize for making a joke to make a point; one that nobody even heard that appeared in a local Dallas magazine.
Faherty has been to Iraq the past two Thanksgivings and he created a foundation to help woulnded soldiers.
This is what he said in the magazine:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East I can tell you this … Despite how the conflict has been protrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any US soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death".
I for one think his joke was pretty darn funny !
Feherety came under criticism and came out with a real and legit apology for insulting Pelosi and Reid. Not sure it was warranted, but I guess he needed to avoid a liberal boycott of CBS golf. Golf has enough problems with the Dems questioning corporate sponsorships of events as it is.
Contrast this episode to Wanda Sykes using a national TV platform following Obama to call Rush Limbaugh a traitor and wish that he die a horrible death from kidney failure. Did anyone ask Wanda to apologize ? Will she do so on her own. Don't hold your breath.
Just another media double standard example. And Feherty's joke was actually funny. Sykes just sounded petty and stupid (some of her earlier material was funny; the Limbaugh stuff was just crass).
CBS TV Golf analyst David Feherety was forced to apologize for making a joke to make a point; one that nobody even heard that appeared in a local Dallas magazine.
Faherty has been to Iraq the past two Thanksgivings and he created a foundation to help woulnded soldiers.
This is what he said in the magazine:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East I can tell you this … Despite how the conflict has been protrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any US soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death".
I for one think his joke was pretty darn funny !
Feherety came under criticism and came out with a real and legit apology for insulting Pelosi and Reid. Not sure it was warranted, but I guess he needed to avoid a liberal boycott of CBS golf. Golf has enough problems with the Dems questioning corporate sponsorships of events as it is.
Contrast this episode to Wanda Sykes using a national TV platform following Obama to call Rush Limbaugh a traitor and wish that he die a horrible death from kidney failure. Did anyone ask Wanda to apologize ? Will she do so on her own. Don't hold your breath.
Just another media double standard example. And Feherty's joke was actually funny. Sykes just sounded petty and stupid (some of her earlier material was funny; the Limbaugh stuff was just crass).
Obama's $ 1.8 Trillion Budget Deficit
The $1.8 Trillion Deficit [Brian Riedl]
The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt. It also means that 45 cents of every dollar Washington spends this year will be borrowed.
President Obama continues to distance himself from this "inherited" budget deficit. But the day he was inaugurated, the 2009 deficit was forecast at $1.2 trillion — meaning $600 billion has already been added during his four-month presidency (an amount that, by itself, would exceed all 2001-07 annual budget deficits). And should the president really be allowed to distance himself from the $1.2 trillion "inherited" portion of the deficit, given that as a senator he supported nearly all policies and bailouts that created it?
The president also talks of cutting the deficit in half from this bloated level. But even after the recession ends and the troops return home, he'd still run $1 trillion deficits — compared to President Bush's $162 billion pre-recession deficit. In other words, the structural budget deficit (which excludes the impacts of booms/recessions) would more than quintuple.
Polls suggest the public tolerates these large deficits because they erroneously believe them to be temporary. Conservatives need to emphasize that the president's agenda would use a temporary recession to create a permanent restructuring of Washington, with historic tax increases and permanent budget deficits to follow.
But in order to regain their budget credibility, conservative lawmakers must first take responsibility for the runaway spending that created the Bush deficits. Then they should ask the electorate not to register their anger at $200-$300 billion GOP budget deficits by letting President Obama run $1-$2 trillion deficits.
— Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt. It also means that 45 cents of every dollar Washington spends this year will be borrowed.
President Obama continues to distance himself from this "inherited" budget deficit. But the day he was inaugurated, the 2009 deficit was forecast at $1.2 trillion — meaning $600 billion has already been added during his four-month presidency (an amount that, by itself, would exceed all 2001-07 annual budget deficits). And should the president really be allowed to distance himself from the $1.2 trillion "inherited" portion of the deficit, given that as a senator he supported nearly all policies and bailouts that created it?
The president also talks of cutting the deficit in half from this bloated level. But even after the recession ends and the troops return home, he'd still run $1 trillion deficits — compared to President Bush's $162 billion pre-recession deficit. In other words, the structural budget deficit (which excludes the impacts of booms/recessions) would more than quintuple.
Polls suggest the public tolerates these large deficits because they erroneously believe them to be temporary. Conservatives need to emphasize that the president's agenda would use a temporary recession to create a permanent restructuring of Washington, with historic tax increases and permanent budget deficits to follow.
But in order to regain their budget credibility, conservative lawmakers must first take responsibility for the runaway spending that created the Bush deficits. Then they should ask the electorate not to register their anger at $200-$300 billion GOP budget deficits by letting President Obama run $1-$2 trillion deficits.
— Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
