• Thanks for link KyleC, this morning Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough were siding with Ann Coulter against the neocons of the Republican Party, who want constant war. It is Pat Buchanan's view that that fight will continue right up to the 2012 elections. And what a battle it will be.... You'll have those remaing in moderate wing against the diffrent tea Parties, pit bulls that have turned into mama grizzlies and now calling themselves pink elephants, the neocons, the libertarians, and the confused.

    Even Joe Scarborough said that Michael Steele got the part about president Obama starting the war in Afghanistan wrong,but he was right about everything else. Joe questioned the Republican Party for following the same pattern of calling anyone against the war in Afghanistan, unpatriotic and being against the troops. That rhetoric didn't hold up in 2006 and 2008 .

    July 9, 2010 at 1:16 p.m.

  • Coulter v.s Kristol!

    July 9, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.

  • Here is an example of economic gibberish.

    "I just heard of a good idea today of making $100 treasury notes, so we can become the debt-holders instead of China.... Japan does this... The other thing we need to do is lower our trade deficit because we can do all the superficial things but unless we get more bang for the buck, the job situation rule will remain as is.... "

    First of all, why would more Americans holding the public debt be better than the Chinese holding it? We are borrowing money from a foreign government at extremely low interest rates - low for now at least. Borrowing from ourselves will remove this money from our private sector and slow the economy just like a tax.

    And lowering our trade deficit, what a great idea I'm going to make a big sign and walk around town with it that says, "LOWER OUR TRADE DEFICIT - NOW." Let's see what else???? Oh yeah, I know I won't buy anything made in China.

    In the mean time I hope Obama increases taxes on our corporations and businesses - I think Cap and Trade will do a nice job of that. That and increased payroll taxes will make us more competitive - that will show China we are not to be trifled with. Oh, I can see them now sweating, wringing their hands and worrying about "what next."

    Mike, you just keep thinking you're really good at it.

    June 29, 2010 at 9:50 p.m.

  • Mike it sounds like the same song and dance because on this forum you are playing the same music "Happy Days Are Here Again" - no one is buying it. It's not a Democratic or Republican thing it's simple economics. Government interference in an economy lowers the standard of living for everyone.

    Wall Street, the banks, the Fed and F&F ran a little rough shod over the economy during the past decade. But the root cause of the financial crisis was sub-prime mortgages. Mortgages the federal government encouraged banks to make, in fact they lowered the standards so that more people could qualify for loans they couldn't repay.

    The "securitization" of these loans was suppose to spread the risk. The rating agencies went along with AAA ratings and so did the all the federal regulators - therein lies a tale of woe. For Wall Street this set up was sweet, it was like taking candy from a baby or a liberal same difference.

    Obama is now using Voo Doo economics trying to revive our economy. But, pardon the doom and gloom it looks like the recession is heading for a double dip. That's what a lot of economists and the Stock Market are saying, I guess they can't help it Mike they're just pessimistic and they all hate Obama, right?

    June 29, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.

  • the big banks are not going to get hurt. they're already big. it's the little guys that are going to get the shaft. how do you think banks make money? anyone?

    bottom line for consumers...if you don't have the money in your account, you can't afford it.

    mike, it appears that this blog as changed direction. ride the wave my friend. it's harder to try and reroute a river than just let it flow.

    as a society we are living on credit. the joe schmoe down the street that has a mortgage on too much house, a crew-cab truck payment, suburban/denali whatever for the wife, RV/boat or both, ATV/Harley, etc. you know them, you may be them.

    now that they have maxed out their credit cards and can't charge any more, they turn to their checking accounts. they rely on overdrafts like credit. spend today, pay tomorrow.

    that is going to be the downfall of The Great American Society.

    June 29, 2010 at 7:19 p.m.

  • Legislation passed with the idea of making things better, even watered down the legislation was suppose to fix things.

    But instead it benefited the ones it was suppose to regulate more.

    I understand your frustration, and in a way I share it with you. There are a lot of things that punish citizens that big banks do. Debit cards as originally proposed, where suppose to make transactions cheaper, no checks to process or bad checks, less cash to take to the bank to deposit, cheaper for the merchant and consumer, ect. But now debit cards become a cash cow for banks.

    Good old Uncle Sam, and state and local governments aren't much better, they just keep on adding rules and regulations and of course fees, to comply with.

    I agree with you, only in America. Not only does a person have to hop through more hoops, they have to pay for the privileged to do so.

    June 29, 2010 at 6:56 p.m.

  • Rollingstone

    It's not even funny to be an apologist for John Boehner... That's like me try to cover up for all of Joe Biden's gaffes.

    Here we go again; gloom and doom but you really need to get some new material because you've been using the same song and dance the last 18 months but you kept relatively quiet during the Bush years.

    Greece and the United States is not even close to a good apples and oranges analogy. Greece and Europe are complaining that they might raise the retirement age to what, the 62 years old.

    That's just a scare tactic, talking point, you are using and it really does not have any significant economic reality component to it.

    I just heard of a good idea today of making $100 treasury notes, so we can become the debt-holders instead of China.... Japan does this... The other thing we need to do is lower our trade deficit because we can do all the superficial things but unless we get more bang for the buck, the job situation rule will remain as is.... That's not a democrat, republican, liberal, conservative thing; that's economic reality.

    June 29, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.

  • The bank stocks went up because the "final bill" wasn't as bad as originally thought. What Boehner is trying to do is avoid a Greece style economic meltdown that will destroy many lives - shucks I guess it's shame on John Boehner how stupid can he get?

    We should do the smart thing and just open the money spigots, Hell it will make us richer and more prosperous, everyone wants that. Let's get everyone dependent on the government, everyone will have a job and we will enjoy a high standard of living at least the well connected will. The rest of us poor slobs will get by as long as we keep our mouths shut.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:54 p.m.

  • I'm a little slow legion357, explain please.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.

  • The law of inertia, or unintended consequences, I guess.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.

  • Lol... I heard the bill is going back for restructure, taking out the tax on the banks, in order to pick two and three republican votes.
    How ironic, we pass a healthcare bill and the health industry stocks go up ; now, after the finance reform bill got out of committee, on the floor for debate, and looks like it's gonna pass in some watered down form; the bank stocks go up.... Only in America.

    A lot of democrats that are representing the state a New York are pretty lenient when it comes to Wall Street.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.

  • Oh don't worry about the banks. Congress is doing all it can to fix those guys. It's just a matter of time before we are in a single bank structure.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.

  • I agree, and those people 65 years or older will be on Medicare, what will his plan due to implode that system... I remember when I retired, all my pertinent health numbers came down because I was under less stress.

    They don't want to tax the banks to bring in more money for the wars or heaven forbid the corporations and the rich,but the patriotic thing to do is raise the retirement age.

    In a day or two he will try to walk that back but it's too late; that mindset is there.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.

  • I heard on TV last night that there are 6 unemployed persons for every vacant job out there, and Boehner wants to up the retirement age so there are even fewer jobs for younger people? Or worse yet, elderly people without jobs, or SS, and living on the streets.
    Can those people add and subtract?

    June 29, 2010 at 4:34 p.m.

  • That is merely the opinion of said poster Rollingstone , not necessarily a fact.

    It's a classic hello kettle ; meet pot..or vice versa.

    Should be close to nap time.

    Sorry,I can't help what comes over the wires; maybe Joe Biden will say something ridiculous.

    June 29, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

  • Mike it's always easy to blame things on everyone else that way you / the Democrats don't have to show any "accountablity or remorse." :)

    June 29, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.

  • You can't make this stuff up, and so keep the cameras rolling and bring the minority leader some more microphones.... House minority leader John Boehner is suggesting that seniors step up to the plate to support both wars we are engaged in by accepting the idea that we need more money to fund them; so the patriotic thing to do is raise the age of Social Security retirement to age 70, and and tie the cost-of-living increases to CPI rather than rate of inflation... He is also suggesting means testing.

    It's one thing to bring out new ideas but to somehow try and tie this into patriotism.. That's a bit of a stretch, even for John Boehner... If the republicans take over the house, he will be the majority leader submitting bills to be debated and voted on. The gifts keep coming.

    June 29, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.

  • No, it's not just the president's fault, it's the constituents, Congress and military's fault because we're all in this together...... Look what happened the last time we left all the decisions to the administration..... We have options, telephones, emails, blogs, newspapers and ways to sway Congress... In watching the confirmation hearings of General Petraeus, all I can hear and see ,is "continue what you are doing because America is behind you. "..God bless America.

    June 29, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.

  • No one cares if it was the same thing being said last year. What we are doing is putting the burden of building a nation in a country that is 75% illiterate, hopelessly impoverished, extremely isolated and remote on the backs of our military.

    We have absoultely no strategic interest in Afghanistan, we have little help from our "allies" and there is really no end in sight. What we will end up doing is wearing out and destroying the combat effectiveness of our own military.

    We are doing this at a time when we cannot or will not even secure our own border from incrusions by terrorists, criminals, drug runners and ruffians of all sorts - it is stupid, very stupid. I don't care if it is Bush's fault, it's Obama's problem, period.

    June 29, 2010 at 12:02 p.m.

  • Thanks for pointing that out ,Kyle, I may be guilty of hearing candidate Obama in my mind, when I should've been listening to the words of president Obama. I guess the hopeful part of me, did not hear the "wiggle room" part.

    I remember the president emphasizing the need to go after Al Qaeda with aerial drones and he was mocked by the democratic and republican presidential candidates as being naive because everyone knows that Al Qaeda resides in Pakistan; ever one knew that we couldn't go after the enemy in a sovereign state. It wasn't long after that,that we learned that with the permission of Pakistan; we were attacking Al Qaeda with aerial drones.

    June 29, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.

  • As Secretary Gates said in December 2009:

    "There isn’t a deadline,” Mr. Gates said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “What we have is a specific date on which we will begin transferring responsibility for security district by district, province by province in Afghanistan, to the Afghans.”

    On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that under the plan, 100,000 American troops would be in Afghanistan in July 2011, and “some handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time.”

    Obama isn't stupid - he gave the military strategy (and political policy) "wiggle room" - I'm sure some troops will be coming home come July 2011 but as was said at the time and has been consistently stated it's the beginning of the end not the end itself.

    I just don't see any difference between what is being said today as was being stated last year.

    June 29, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Ok Mike, only you can preach about the war ....uh, I mean Bush's war. But then there's this :

    "Petraeus reminded the Senate Armed Services Committee that the president has said the plan to bring some forces home next summer isn't a rush for the exits. He said the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is "enduring," and that it will be years before the Afghan security forces can fully take over."

    Dog gone that stinking Bush, now look what he's done.

    June 29, 2010 at 11:18 a.m.

  • Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned VAT, how about Cap and Trade :)

    June 29, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.

  • Rollingstone

    No, your talking points mentioned a VAT,a budget, and using an average to mask several items(Medicare Part D,tax cuts for the wealthy) and two wars off budget. President Obama had no choice but to implement short term deficits and continue the bailouts of President Bush to keep us from going over the cliff...You think differently but we will never know how how your ideas might have been better... You can chuckle all day off of that.

    Right wingers like to concentrate on the healthcare reform but ignore the enormous amount we're spending on two wars. Again, we will approve of $60 billion of defense expenditures for the next four months but has since the democrats passed Health Care reform; we'll just concentrate on that. Entitlements, defense spending, taxes, and cuts should be on the table, when we become economically stable. Until the partisans realize that; the left, right, conservative, liberal, democrat republican food fights will rule the day and we will see another decade wasted.

    I don't really care about what Bush did but what you call justification, is called a strategy by the Obama Financial team to get is out what Bush left, using extraordinary tactics because of the severity of the recession.

    It's very easy to say we started to wars, now it's yours to win, lose, or draw.... That way you'll never have to show any accountability or remorse. As I stated yesterday, the escalation belongs to the Obama Administration as the results, but because the previous administration, nor its followers, had to account for the wars, it is perfectly legitimate to continue reminding them of what they did. That's called closure. It also reminds them that they have no room or credibility to preach. After all, it was only 18 months ago.

    June 29, 2010 at 10:48 a.m.

  • Ok,Holein1, I'm going to try and get in the batter's box one more time because I went over your comment history, where I was able to see that we have not being that for off on national issues(I hope that doesn't hurt you..:-) but I also read where you stated that you cannot wait to get to the ballot box to vote against president Obama.

    I guess I'm puzzled because the topic was Afghanistan and 3 of your last 4 posts was trying to label me as a blind loyalist. I think you're very angry with this president and you expect everyone else to feel that way, when they don't, you respond.
    I am frustrated because we have not plugged a 70 day oil leak, don't want to debate Afghanistan, and the high unemployment figures. On the first issue, I'm sorry but I see where British Petroleum has made $58.5 billion in profit over the last three years, spent $29 million on studies for safer drilling(.05% of profits) and not one red nickel for spill response. I can't blame the president for 70 days of oil spilling in the Gulf..... On the second issue, why aren't Americans outraged over the situation in Afghanistan?.... I blame the president for that because he has not articulated a good reason for being there and it could be that it is not in his heart but will continue the mission for political reasons. If that is the case, unforgivable... On the last and most important issue, Jobs should have been a priority since the get go.... Ultimately the president gets the blame for that but under our separation of powers, Congress should carry most of the blame. Those are my opinions, but I suspect, I will continue being a blind loyalist, in your eyes.

    June 29, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.

  • Mike, my "talking points" came from your link, your own research. Check what it says at the bottom of the graph in the link. My other points came directly from Obama's budget downloaded from the government web site.

    Furthermore Bush's deficits over his eight years averaged about 0.5 trillion dollars. Obama's will average twice that and in the last 18 months they average about three times Bush's deficits.

    We have only begun to see the the effects of healthcare reform, those costs will be coming with a vengeance. And on top of that we are looking at more bailouts in the future for states and public pensions.

    And finally I got to chuckle when you keep using what Bush did as an excuse and justification for what Obama's is doing - I thought we agreed that Bush was an idiot.

    He started two wars now they are Obama's to win, lose, or just quit and get out of. Bush cut taxes but not spending, so now Obama has a license to create not big deficits but huge, unsustainable, economically ruinous deficits.

    June 29, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.

  • For those that do not Want to research the group and desire a shortcut.... The director of the nonprofit group worked for presidents Clinton and Carter... The assistant director did work under a democratic administration..... That's saying that working under an administration will always make your work suspect and bias.. That is where we are today.

    Two politically conservative groups that oppose the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities's policy positions accuse the group of producing misleading studies.[5][6] These critics focus on what they consider to be fallacious assumptions and inaccurate projections made by the group's analysts. Defenders of the group note that the Center's analyses are based on the work of independent, nonpartisan authorities such as the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Government Accountability Office.
    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is a non-profit think tank that describes itself as a "policy organization ... working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals."

    Now, I have been called several names and accused of being things I am not because some posters do not like the material I Post.

    People should not take my word for anything, look at the data, get a world almanac and check on its validity. That way, you stay out of the day to day, left/right arguments and most importantly, you feel like you made up your own mind. It works for me.

    BTW as I have in the past, if that report turns out to be a lie or misleading, I will not have a problem making the correction.

    June 29, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.

  • Rollingstone

    I would prefer that the topic remain Afghanistan but I realize I opened the door with that chart, so I will respond.
    Every one will notice that Rollingstone will use the word "MAY" to try and shootdown the message as propagandist material, rather than site a reliable source that contradicts the data or makes this public information, a source of the democratic party. I have looked at the data and I cannot find anything contradictory or false. Again, furnish a link making your statement true. In not doing so, who becomes the propagandist?

    Rollingstone keeps referring to talking points of the right wing that has not materialized, and if it does, it would be the product of the new Congress because the committee to reduce the deficit will not make their recommendations until December of 2010. I believe that the Republican Party will pick up seats in the house and senate. If they takeover the house the agenda will come from the Republican Party. That's unless everything I learned my civics class is completely wrong and it's a president that picks the agenda, summons or dictates a vote(according to Beck) and then signs the legislation into law.

    June 29, 2010 at 9:10 a.m.

  • About the "Center on Budget and Policies Priorities" the source of Mike's graph:

    "The CBPP focuses on lower to middle income issues and may be directly involved with the Democratic Party." Now that is an unbiased source of information. Propaganda, ....uh, I mean data fresh from the politburo.

    Obama's budget the last one he published shows trillion dollar deficits for every year of his 10 year budget. This budget assumed an end to the wars and the Bush tax cuts and an end to the recession. He does show / hopes the GDP grows at 4% a year and the deficit shrinks as a percent of the GDP.

    Everyone knows that he is planning on reducing the deficit with higher taxes, higher taxes on everyone including the middle class - now let's see what does VAT stand for ?????

    June 29, 2010 at 8:46 a.m.

  • I'm not trying to do anything other than ask questions.

    I haven't said that you were a liar, manipulative or deceitful. Those are harsh words and I would not think lightly about throwing those kinds of accusations around.

    I respect you, Mike. You put a lot of time in on your blogs. You and I do not see eye to eye on some things, and when that is the case, I ask questions. I will call you soft on Obama. He's your guy. Of course you're going to be soft on him.

    June 28, 2010 at 7:34 p.m.

  • Ok,I thought about it..An "ends justifies the means" is not what our country is about...As Colin Powell correctly said"Saddam was in a box" and it certainly was not worth 4,000 of our finest dying,the money spent, and the extra turmoil it caused.not to mention bad guys are evrywhere...I still believe the historians,Iraq will go down as our biggest foreign policy blunder.

    I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

    I agree with the reality of being president thrumps campaign rethoric but it think priorities has to be considered.

    Suppers ready...Have a good one.

    June 28, 2010 at 7:05 p.m.

  • Its seems to me the reality of actually being President trumped, Mr. Obama s campaign promises as far as Guantánamo and the Afghan war go. He realized he cannot deliver as promised, nothing new for a president once elected. I seem to remember in the campaign Obama did in fact say that he would concentrate on Afghanistan more than Iraq.

    About Iraq, if he was still in power and alive, Saddam Husein would be 74 years old this year, chance are that either Uday or Qusay, the blood thirsty sons he recognize, would have been in power. Just think about that for a few minutes.

    June 28, 2010 at 6:42 p.m.

  • As usual Holein1, you know not of what you speak.

    If you're talking about the money President karzai sent out; that was for personal gain and had nothing to do with Afghanistan..... In Afghanistan 95% of the private armed guards are from local towns and villages, unlike Iraq, so the money we paid in security contracts went to the warlords; unbeknownst to us. As I stated, it took a congressional investigation to discover this.

    Right now, the people of Afghanistan are afraid President Karzai will make a deal with the Taliban to benefit himself and his government and nothing else. The the solution I suggested would have our envoys negotiate a deal in which the fighting would stop; enabling us to convince them that it is in their best interest to keep Al Qaeda types out of their country.

    You seem preoccupied to make me out a liar, manipulator and devious.

    June 28, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.

  • This blog is is about Afghanistan but I'm not about to let falsehoods stand as fact.

    Gregory White and Kamelia Angelova | The Business Insider
    President Obama's administration has been blamed for reckless spending that has put America into its debt hole. But in reality, much of that spending emanates from policies of President Bush, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
    They argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts (along with the economic downturn) are what is driving the U.S. deficit, not stimulus spending.

    The chart presents the ugly truth.

    But the right wing Heritage Foundation adds a "behavior model" to contradict the chart but that's like, including your own numbers to get your desired

    June 28, 2010 at 5:15 p.m.

  • So it was used in a much similar way to your solution on how to deal with the Taliban.

    On one hand it's a solution on the other it's a tactic employed by a corrupt leader.

    I see said the blind man.

    June 28, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.

  • In fact the democrats just cut off $3.9 billion of reconstruction funds to Afghanistan.... That's a start...This came about on a Mothers Day fact finding mission to Afghanistan by Nancy Pelosi and a report by the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post stating that President karzai openly sent out three billion dollars in cash over the past three years. The speaker and several others witnessed wide-scale corruption...... The blocking of the funds may be temporary but it drives home a message.

    A 6 month investigation just concluded that the $2.6 billion Host Nation Trucking went to Afghan warlords to pay for extortion,corruption and funding the insurgents....

    June 28, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 28, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.

  • It doesn't really matter what you wanna hear, because the history books will tell all.

    No doubt about it, the escalation belongs to the Obama Administration but the detour to Iraq and the periods 2004 to 2008, when the Taliban was allowed to regroup, cannot possibly be blamed on a person or administration that was not an office. I guess you have to know what transpired from the year 2001 to Jun of 2010 before you can assign credit or blame.

    The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was a brilliant military/CIA operation; high fives all around, but squandering that great mission to pursue a reckless invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with the situation in Afghanistan,today.

    Any decision henceforth will be on this administration, that is without question.... I just read where speaker Pelosi will hold the administration to their word by threatening to withhold the purse strings. The separation of powers might just have a lot to do with this war, so before rendering judgment, remember the final chapter has not been written.

    June 28, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 28, 2010 at 4:28 p.m.

  • Kyle C,
    Want argue the point on local or state, but if you take a look at the states with high gov/employment rate those states are close to being bankrupt, pension plans “unions” entitlements from those states on and on. California is dead in the water.

    Obama has built a wall of bearcats that higher than the fence on the border.

    I do have a question for you, since you’re from Ireland, how long have you been here?

    June 28, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.

  • How much of that expansion in state government is due to federal mandates?

    Secondly Obama now owns the Afghan war. He has touched the "tar baby" - nay I say he has grabbed hold and grappled with it, now he's stuck to it. So please I don't want to hear, "It wasn't me that started that old crazy Asian war."

    June 28, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.

  • Minor quibble Victore but when you say ""Government, by whom Obama" I will contend that Federal expansion is nothing compared to local and state.

    Let's look at the difference's between local, state and Federal employment, take a look at the data here :

    Growth in Government over 50 years:

    Local Government employees 1946: 2,762,000
    Local Government employees 2006: 11,885,000

    State Government employees 1946: 804,000
    State Government employees 2006: 5,128,000

    Federal Government employees 1946: 2,434,000
    Federal Government employees 2006: 2,721,000 (of this figure 652,000 are defense employees)

    We all know the private sector is not yet confident enough to create the number of jobs we need to see but it's improving (read this out today on economic indicators:

    And don't forget we have held a census this year which temporarily inflated government employee figures.

    Another boilerplate bites the rust

    June 28, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.

  • Obama didn’t inherit anything, he was seeking an opportunity to apply his ideology, and he got the job. 1.6 trillion Deficit, I think on the last count Obama has blown that right out the window, look at his budgets. The biggest employer, the Government, by whom Obama…

    June 28, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.

  • Afghanistan, has been a heart burn for congress since about 1979, thanks to good ole Charlie Wilson a lone democratic renegade and one CIA officer, in their quest to stop communism “Russians”. Thanks to those good ole boys they left a hell of a mess in Afghanistan, the two were involved in illegal gun trade with Egypt along with smuggling weapons into Pakistan then moving the weapons into Afghanistan, then provided Stinger missiles, U.S. made weapons. Texas Charlie was eat up with booze, dope and wild women and he used to his advantage for his “war.” You talk about corruption, Charlie Wilson was the man, about as corrupt as they come. I don’t think Black Water can hold a candle to Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson was one of the root causes of 9/11 because of what he didn’t do in Afghanistan, he for got to shut door when he left, and I be damn walks in Osama Bin laden. He was the man to blame. Just a few facts that have been completing overlooked because we had to go back and clean up Charlie Wilson’s screw up.

    June 28, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.

  • Well Dr. Holein1, the fact that I responded might be that I want to correct the record and not just leave a mischaracterization of what I posted. I think born2bme words " people believe what they want to believe" rings true in this case. I specifically said that " I don't really care what you want, " meaning I'm not particularly interested in how critical you want me to be of this president and how fair and balanced, you want me to be. I am not auditioning nor did I in any way, say I was not interested in what everyone thought. You are using that "I" as an accepted view point of this forum; so to speak.

    To me, that phrase " no president has a magic wand" means we have a process that even a United States president has to adhere to. I don't think Obama will make a lot of use of his executive authority but when the history book is written; I would like to know the choices he had on reining in the Bush policies. I know the right, likes to forget the previous eight years, as if it didn't happen but Afghanistan is not in the shape it is in because of anything Obama did. In fact his administration has killed more Al Qaeda leaders then the Bush administration did in the previous eight years. All the variables must be considered, you think it's an excuse; I think it's a good evaluation. I don't see where you could just forget about the $1.6 trillion deficit he inherited or the steep recession; nearly going into depression. Name me one other president that inherited two wars, a recession, and and a $1.6 trillion deficit. That's not even counting ignoring, energy policies, Health Care, education and infrastructure repair.

    I don't believe in that slogan" fair and balanced" because somethings are not debatable, so I don't feel I have to give both sides of an issue; in many cases I have.

    I could write several blogs discussing my frustration with this administration,but we would not agree on the reasons. i.e... I believe if you won 52% of the vote and a electoral college landslide, the president should not have wasted all his time trying to acquire one or two republican votes. Those tax cuts he agreed to, for three GOP votes would have been better spent on light rail. I think he was too naive because he thought he could get bipartisan support and that mistake will cost him several seats in the house.

    June 28, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Mike, I know you could care less about what I think, actually, I know you secretly care a lot about what I, and everyone else who reads your blog, think. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't take the time to write it. Why share your thoughts with people if you don't care what they think? Talk about one sided.

    My observation is this. You use harsh criticisms when talking about politicians and policies that do not align with your ideology. Your choice, and that's cool.

    However, you sound just like the political machine, on both sides, when the tables are turned and you make excuses for your favorite politicians. Pre-Obama it was Bush policies, now it's "no president has a magic wand."

    BTW, I thought Palin was a joke and still do. If you look at my comment history you'll see that I have said as much, and more, in the past. I can't stand the fact that the GOP is actually giving her the time of day. It really takes away credibility. The GOP is doing the same thing you're doing. They are failing to be critical of poor decisions within their own party.

    June 28, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.

  • Expectations?

    I wrote of my frustration because the administration is complicit in an open ended commitment to Afghanistan, continuing to give contracts to corrupt contractors, continuing the Bush policies, and I'm accused of not being critical of the Obama What must I do? Should I fall in with the name calling critics? I have said many times that president Obama is a human being and will make human mistakes and if his policies don't work; he will suffer at the ballot box.

    I blamed the democrats and republicans alike, for rubber stamping defense appropriations and specifically named Diane Feinstein.... I did not know I had to use certain words, please certain people, in writing a blog. Silly me.

    June 28, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Well holein1, I really don't care what you want but I did vote for president Obama and I don't regret it. I can imagine the predicament we would be in, if the person you voted for would have gotten elected. Vice president Palin! Yikes!

    I am a realist and I know that no president has a magic wand and it takes Congress, constituents,military,press,politics and the Supreme Court to make things happen. Am I accusing the president of being coy? In a way I am because of his words on the campaign stump and his first months in office. There's still a chance that after the November election, he will reverse positions. Positioning is a political strategy that takes place every day. As I said, I'm hoping for the best because I realize I don't know all the details that takes place in these decisions.

    Like as said, you can make anything you want of it but it doesn't make it so.

    June 28, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.

  • So your man didn't do what he said he would do, and you make excuses for him? For once, Mike, I would like to see you be truly critical of Obama and his Administration.

    June 28, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.