I wouldn't believe a WORD the Democrats say...this is all a ploy to make it appear they have a deal and the Republicans are being unreasonable....Boehner and Republicans hang tough....do not compromise....the American People are behind you....
Reid: We’ve agreed to a number of cuts! Boehner: No, we haven’t
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:10 PM 03/31/2011 | Updated: 5:08 PM 03/31/2011
Just hours after Democratic leaders announced that the parties had agreed to a specific number of budget cuts to the federal government, House Speaker John Boehner said that they most certainly have not.
“There’s not agreement on numbers,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “And nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
Vice President Joe Biden met with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle Wednesday night, and Democrats emerged with reports that they had agreed on a baseline number of cuts, but not a specific way to achieve them.
“Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon a number on which to base our budget cuts,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. “$73 billion below the president’s budget proposal.”
That was news to Republicans, according to Boehner, who was in the meeting.
“There is not agreement to a set of numbers,” he said. “I said it, and I’m going to say it because that is the fact.”
Since Congress failed to pass a budget in 2010, the U.S. government has been running on a series of short-term spurts of funding, and the latest one expires next week. Democrats and Republicans have attempted to negotiate a deal for one final short-term funding measure that will keep the government funded through this fiscal year, which ends at the end of September.
Republicans passed their proposal to fund the government last month. It included $61 billion in cuts when put against the actual budget (The $73 billion figure Reid used was compared to Obama’s proposed budget, which was never passed.) The Senate later shot down the House’s measure, pushing both parties to the negotiating table.
A coalition of conservatives within the GOP have vowed to vote against any compromise deal that does not include the cuts they voted for in February, including “rider” amendments that completely defund the Democrats’ health-care law and groups such as Planned Parenthood. Boehner, however, has not stated that he is closed to compromise, even if it means losing those rider amendments. Meanwhile, a coalition of Tea Party groups are gathering near the Capitol this week to press Republicans to hold to the $61 billion in cuts that the House passed last year. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said earlier this month that the only way the parties would find common ground was for Boehner to “abandon the Tea Party.”
When asked Thursday if he would not budget from the $61 billion number, or stand with conservatives who have refused to budge, Boehner said the GOP would “fight” for it, but did not say that he wouldn’t accept a compromise.
“There are a lot of people in Washington who want a lot of things,” Boehner said. “We are going to fight for all the spending cuts that we can get.”
When asked for hints on how he felt the negotiations were going, Boehner merely smiled and said, “We’re talking.”
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Gas Prices up 100% and all Obama talks about is Green Energy when we are all suffering at pump!
And the worse part of this is all the IDIOT in the White House is doing is stopping us from drilling for oil and trying to push green energy...He and his administration has poured billions into green energy and nobody can make a go of it because they can't make a buck....Obama just doesn't get it....he will NOT get reelected unless he addresses gas prices......
Gasoline up 100% under Obama
James S. Robbins Published on March 30, 2011
Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction.
Consumer price index (CPI) figures from February show an unadjusted 12 month gasoline inflation rate of 19.2%, but in the last month alone prices jumped 6.8%, probably because of oil price increases due to instabilities in the Middle East. If the trend continues, gas prices would double again within a year. 100% gasoline price inflation is nothing to brag about, but imagine Mr. Obama going into the 2012 election having to explain why gas costs $7.00 a gallon. I'm sure the White House would spin it as one of their "Green" initiatives.
Gasoline up 100% under Obama
James S. Robbins Published on March 30, 2011
Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction.
Consumer price index (CPI) figures from February show an unadjusted 12 month gasoline inflation rate of 19.2%, but in the last month alone prices jumped 6.8%, probably because of oil price increases due to instabilities in the Middle East. If the trend continues, gas prices would double again within a year. 100% gasoline price inflation is nothing to brag about, but imagine Mr. Obama going into the 2012 election having to explain why gas costs $7.00 a gallon. I'm sure the White House would spin it as one of their "Green" initiatives.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
This Video will Blow you Mind! You've Got to See It!
This will blow your mind...especially when you consider the US is BROKE!....I am proud that Congressman Ted Poe is from my congressional district and he makes good sense most of the time and this issue is one of those times....This is CRAZY!!!!...we're giving aid to China and then borrowing money from them???? Are we NUTS???? The Democrats say we can't cut much from the budget, but it's obvious that the amounts of cuts we can make are endless without impacting the quality of life in the United States.....in fact cuts would aid the quality of life in America since for those of us that DO pay tax would not have to pay so much and have more to spend on our standard of living!
"Dirty" Harry Reid you DO have a problem....you are old, stubborn and senile and you don't give a damn about what's good for this country!
House GOP frosh to Reid: Grandpa Harry, we think you have a problem
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:01 PM 03/30/2011 | Updated: 4:02 PM 03/30/2011
For some of the House Republican freshmen, the time has come to sit down with grandpa and tell him they think he has a problem.
A cadre of GOP House freshmen delivered a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday, urging him to broker a long-term deal with Republicans to keep the government funded through the fiscal year and pass a budget that makes “reasonable, responsible spending cuts.” Just for good measure, the letter preemptively blamed him if the government shuts down, too.
“Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure. You have failed to pass a budget, failed to restrain spending, and failed to put our country on sound fiscal footing. We do not accept your failure as our own,” the letter, signed by 30 House freshmen, read. “The House of Representatives is doing our job, Mr. Reid. The Senate needs to start doing theirs.”
The freshmen who spearheaded the effort unveiled the letter at a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol building Wednesday, and they each made sure to take a few shots at the senator from Nevada.
“I’m here today to decry the do-nothing Senate and to decry the do-nothing leadership of Senator Harry Reid,” said Missouri Rep. Vicki Hartzler. “We put forth a proposal that would cut $61 billion, keep our government running, but yet make it more efficient and more effective. And yet Senator Reid wont even consider that. That is a dereliction of duty.”
Hartzler was referring to the House spending measure Republicans passed last month that cut $61 billion from the budget over the next six months. The bill has stalled in the Senate while Republicans and Democrats broker a deal to keep the government running.
The House freshmen rhetoric — heavy on bemoaning the Senate for inaction, sounded a lot like House Democrats not too long ago, who also complained when the upper chamber wouldn’t take up their bills. And that was when it was controlled by the same party.
“You know, 90 days ago, I was in the private sector running a small business. When faced with a challenge it was never an option to do nothing,” said Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo.
“The Senate Democrats are blocking it all,” complained Alabama Rep. Martha Roby, referring to House bills to defund the health-care bill and National Public Radio and another to cut $61 billion from the federal budget. “We will not settle for a split the baby strategy. The American people want real cuts and it is time for the Senate democrats to respond.”
When questioned later on what she meant when she said Republicans would not settle for a “split the baby strategy,” Roby repeatedly changed the subject and refused to expand on whether it meant House freshmen would accept a compromise.
After 54 House Republicans voted earlier this month against a short-term extension of government funding to give the parties more time to negotiate a larger deal on government funding, it remains unclear how much support House Speaker John Boehner will get in his caucus when GOP leaders unveil a compromise with the White House, presumably sometime in April.
After the conference, about a dozen of the freshmen who signed the letter walked from outside the House side of the U.S. Capitol, marched up the steps of the Senate (some of them actually ran), and taped an envelope sideways to the front door with the words “Mr. Reid” written in marker.
The only thing missing was a doorbell for them to ring before dashing away to hide behind the columns.
Obama - Problems with the TRUTH Again!
I thought Obama said the US mission was NOT about regime change???? I thought he said we were not taking sides, it was just about humanitarian help???? He lied on Monday night to the American People just like he lies to us all the time. I do not trust this man....he is going to get us into a conflict we can't win quickly....we had a chance to get this over three weeks ago, but he couldn't make up his mind...then after Hillary and Rice pounded on him over the objections of the military he acted but too late....he will mismanage this just like he has mismanaged every other crisis since he came into power....He's nothing short of an unexperienced JOKE!
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels
By Mark Hosenball WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:08pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.
Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.
U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.
While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.
SPECIFIC OPERATIONS
People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.
In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.
Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."
In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.
Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.
"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.
Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.
According to an article speculating on possible U.S. covert actions in Libya published early in March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, a covert action is "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."
ARMS SUPPLIES
The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."
U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.
Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.
There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."
"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by David Storey)
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels
By Mark Hosenball WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:08pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.
Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.
U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.
While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.
SPECIFIC OPERATIONS
People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.
In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.
Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."
In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.
Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.
"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.
Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.
According to an article speculating on possible U.S. covert actions in Libya published early in March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, a covert action is "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."
ARMS SUPPLIES
The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."
U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.
Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.
There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."
"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by David Storey)
Planned Parenthood trying to scare the public over mammograms when they DO NOT even provide them!
Another reason to defund taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood....They are just lying to the public about what services they are providing....defund them NOW!
Obama - Christian????? America Certainly Isn't Sure!
Why would it surprise anyone that American do not know what religion Barack Obama practices????? If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck its probably a duck....it Obama talks like a Muslim, is sympathetic to Muslims he might be a muslim.....Hell we don't even know for sure if Obama was born in America! And why would any American believe anything he says...we all know he has real problems with the TRUTH!
Amid Crises, President Obama Prays 'a Lot'
Obama Says Faith in God, Prayer Keys to Tough Presidential Decisions
By DEVIN DWYER March 30, 2011
President Obama says he's been doing "a lot of praying" in recent weeks while faced with tough choices on Libya and other crises at home and abroad.
While the president has not shied away from openly discussing his prayer life, Obama's comments are the latest reminder that he believes faith in God has helped him navigate the presidency's difficult moments.
At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last month, Obama described how the shooting tragedy in Tucson, Ariz., had deepened his faith and how watching his daughters grow up makes him lean on God a little bit more.
"My prayers sometimes are general: Lord, give me the strength to meet the challenges of my office," he said. "Sometimes they're specific: Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance. Where there will be boys, Lord, have that skirt get longer as she travels to that dance."
Despite Obama's public professions on religion and spirituality, many Americans continue to doubt the president's faith.
Nearly one in five Americans incorrectly believes that Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released late last year.
The poll found the number surveyed who knew correctly that Obama is Christian actually declined, from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent in August 2010. Forty-three percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.
The president has defended against the skepticism, and said that his faith has helped him endure the difficult questions.
"My Christian faith ... has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years -- all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time," Obama said last month. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God."
The Obamas, once regular churchgoers, have not formally joined a new church since moving to Washington, D.C., and have publicly attended services less than a dozen times.
"Barack Obama is a Christian. He's always been clear and unapologetic about that, and he's comfortable with his own faith," said Rev. Jim Wallis, an Obama friend and spiritual adviser. "But I think the president, particularly a president, needs the kind of pastoral care or spiritual counsel with people who don't have a political agenda. And it's hard for a president to get that."
Obama told Terry Moran of ABC "Nightline" that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool for keeping the faith during his time in office.
"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said in an interview during his first year as president. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
The president is also said to be fond of worship services at the chapel at Camp David.
Most Presidents Not Church Members
Historians say a president's not formally joining a Washington, D.C., church is consistent with precedent.
George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, were both "frequent attendees" at local churches but did not formally join a D.C. congregation.
Ronald Reagan publicly articulated the values of evangelical Christianity, but rarely attended church services. He also never became a formal member at a congregation in Washington.
Jimmy Carter, who joined First Baptist Church in Washington, stands out as one of the most prominent presidential church-goers. He attended 72 Sunday services at First Baptist while in office, according to records kept by the Carter Library.
And Bill and Hillary Clinton, who attended Foundry United Methodist church near the White House regularly but did not formally join, are perhaps the exception in modern history for first family participation in church life, experts say.
Obama and all former U.S. presidents professed faith in Christianity, with most men identifying as Episcopalians, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Obama is the first U.S. president who affiliates with the Christian Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ.
Amid Crises, President Obama Prays 'a Lot'
Obama Says Faith in God, Prayer Keys to Tough Presidential Decisions
By DEVIN DWYER March 30, 2011
President Obama says he's been doing "a lot of praying" in recent weeks while faced with tough choices on Libya and other crises at home and abroad.
While the president has not shied away from openly discussing his prayer life, Obama's comments are the latest reminder that he believes faith in God has helped him navigate the presidency's difficult moments.
At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last month, Obama described how the shooting tragedy in Tucson, Ariz., had deepened his faith and how watching his daughters grow up makes him lean on God a little bit more.
"My prayers sometimes are general: Lord, give me the strength to meet the challenges of my office," he said. "Sometimes they're specific: Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance. Where there will be boys, Lord, have that skirt get longer as she travels to that dance."
Despite Obama's public professions on religion and spirituality, many Americans continue to doubt the president's faith.
Nearly one in five Americans incorrectly believes that Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released late last year.
The poll found the number surveyed who knew correctly that Obama is Christian actually declined, from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent in August 2010. Forty-three percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.
The president has defended against the skepticism, and said that his faith has helped him endure the difficult questions.
"My Christian faith ... has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years -- all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time," Obama said last month. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God."
The Obamas, once regular churchgoers, have not formally joined a new church since moving to Washington, D.C., and have publicly attended services less than a dozen times.
"Barack Obama is a Christian. He's always been clear and unapologetic about that, and he's comfortable with his own faith," said Rev. Jim Wallis, an Obama friend and spiritual adviser. "But I think the president, particularly a president, needs the kind of pastoral care or spiritual counsel with people who don't have a political agenda. And it's hard for a president to get that."
Obama told Terry Moran of ABC "Nightline" that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool for keeping the faith during his time in office.
"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said in an interview during his first year as president. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
The president is also said to be fond of worship services at the chapel at Camp David.
Most Presidents Not Church Members
Historians say a president's not formally joining a Washington, D.C., church is consistent with precedent.
George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, were both "frequent attendees" at local churches but did not formally join a D.C. congregation.
Ronald Reagan publicly articulated the values of evangelical Christianity, but rarely attended church services. He also never became a formal member at a congregation in Washington.
Jimmy Carter, who joined First Baptist Church in Washington, stands out as one of the most prominent presidential church-goers. He attended 72 Sunday services at First Baptist while in office, according to records kept by the Carter Library.
And Bill and Hillary Clinton, who attended Foundry United Methodist church near the White House regularly but did not formally join, are perhaps the exception in modern history for first family participation in church life, experts say.
Obama and all former U.S. presidents professed faith in Christianity, with most men identifying as Episcopalians, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Obama is the first U.S. president who affiliates with the Christian Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ.
Cut the Foreign Aid Budget NOW!!!!
Giving out all this foreign aid when we are broke is NUTS.....this has to be cut significantly and should be on the table NOW! We're giving away money when we can't even afford to pay our own bills....it's ridiculous....
CUT FOREIGN AID BUDGET NOW
By DICK MORRIS Published on TheHill.com on March 29, 2011
As the CR talks between the House Republicans and the administration and Senate Democrats near their deadline, the House negotiators should put America's foreign aid budget on the table.
With the Democrats reportedly willing to cut about half of the $61 billion the GOP has sought, much of the balance could come from a moratorium in paying out the $50 billion of foreign economic and military aid the United States dispenses every year. Rather than engage in a numerical debate, the Republicans should make the fight about whether to cut the foreign aid budget. Who will defend foreign aid when we have a $1.6 trillion deficit?
American foreign aid appropriations have escalated from about $20 billion in 2000 to $50 billion today. Almost every single nation on earth gets our foreign aid. The major recipients of the $35 billion in economic aid we dispense are: Afghanistan, $2.6 billion; Israel, $3 billion; Iraq, $766 million; and Egypt, $1.6 billion. But beyond these aid packages, we give Africa $7 billion in economic aid each year. We donate $2 billion to the Western Hemisphere (only about $400 million of it to Haiti). We give Asia, apart from Afghanistan, $2 billion. And we give Europe almost $1 billion.
Foreign aid has never been politically popular in the United States, and now is the time to put it on the table in the budget talks. If the Democrats want to shut down the government so that we can give more money in foreign aid, let them do it!
While it is true that much of the foreign aid we dispense goes to a few countries, almost everybody gets something. Aside from the major recipients (Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq), many other nations get more than $100 million each year. A partial list appears at the end of this column.
When Americans understand the extent to which we, as the nation running the largest budget deficit in the world, are subsidizing almost every other nation on the planet, their patience will be exhausted.
Even if we hold apart from the proposed moratorium on foreign aid those nations currently in the midst of key foreign conflicts in which there is an American interest -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel -- there is still a pool of upward of $30 billion from which to cut. With half the fiscal year remaining, a prorated cut of $15 billion would fill most of the gap between the House and Senate proposals for reduction of spending.
But the larger point is that House Republicans must put more than mere numbers in play in the debate with the administration and Senate Democrats. As pressing as the need to cut government spending and our budget deficit is, few will storm the barricades over the difference between $30 billion and $60 billion in budget cuts. But if the issue is whether to fund foreign aid to every nation on Earth, it becomes one that all can grasp, and the debate one in which all will participate -- and not in a way to the Democrats' liking.
And, if the negotiations do not succeed and a government shutdown looms, just shut down the foreign aid budget. The House should pass the rest of the CR. Let the rest of the government operate as usual; just foreign aid will no longer be dispensed. Democrats cannot and will not trigger a general shutdown to protect the foreign aid budget, believe me.
Aid to nations
Ivory Coast -- $138M
Democratic Republic of the
Congo -- $213M
Ethiopia -- $584M
Ghana -- $175M
Kenya -- $714M
Liberia -- $219M
Malawi -- $179M
Mali -- $169M
Mozambique -- $415M
Namibia -- $103M
Nigeria -- $648M
Rwanda -- $241M
Senegal -- $137M
South Africa -- $586M
Sudan -- $440M
Tanzania -- $550M
Uganda -- $480M
Zambia -- $409M
Indonesia -- $228M
Philippines -- $133M
Vietnam -- $123M
Ukraine -- $124M
CUT FOREIGN AID BUDGET NOW
By DICK MORRIS Published on TheHill.com on March 29, 2011
As the CR talks between the House Republicans and the administration and Senate Democrats near their deadline, the House negotiators should put America's foreign aid budget on the table.
With the Democrats reportedly willing to cut about half of the $61 billion the GOP has sought, much of the balance could come from a moratorium in paying out the $50 billion of foreign economic and military aid the United States dispenses every year. Rather than engage in a numerical debate, the Republicans should make the fight about whether to cut the foreign aid budget. Who will defend foreign aid when we have a $1.6 trillion deficit?
American foreign aid appropriations have escalated from about $20 billion in 2000 to $50 billion today. Almost every single nation on earth gets our foreign aid. The major recipients of the $35 billion in economic aid we dispense are: Afghanistan, $2.6 billion; Israel, $3 billion; Iraq, $766 million; and Egypt, $1.6 billion. But beyond these aid packages, we give Africa $7 billion in economic aid each year. We donate $2 billion to the Western Hemisphere (only about $400 million of it to Haiti). We give Asia, apart from Afghanistan, $2 billion. And we give Europe almost $1 billion.
Foreign aid has never been politically popular in the United States, and now is the time to put it on the table in the budget talks. If the Democrats want to shut down the government so that we can give more money in foreign aid, let them do it!
While it is true that much of the foreign aid we dispense goes to a few countries, almost everybody gets something. Aside from the major recipients (Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq), many other nations get more than $100 million each year. A partial list appears at the end of this column.
When Americans understand the extent to which we, as the nation running the largest budget deficit in the world, are subsidizing almost every other nation on the planet, their patience will be exhausted.
Even if we hold apart from the proposed moratorium on foreign aid those nations currently in the midst of key foreign conflicts in which there is an American interest -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel -- there is still a pool of upward of $30 billion from which to cut. With half the fiscal year remaining, a prorated cut of $15 billion would fill most of the gap between the House and Senate proposals for reduction of spending.
But the larger point is that House Republicans must put more than mere numbers in play in the debate with the administration and Senate Democrats. As pressing as the need to cut government spending and our budget deficit is, few will storm the barricades over the difference between $30 billion and $60 billion in budget cuts. But if the issue is whether to fund foreign aid to every nation on Earth, it becomes one that all can grasp, and the debate one in which all will participate -- and not in a way to the Democrats' liking.
And, if the negotiations do not succeed and a government shutdown looms, just shut down the foreign aid budget. The House should pass the rest of the CR. Let the rest of the government operate as usual; just foreign aid will no longer be dispensed. Democrats cannot and will not trigger a general shutdown to protect the foreign aid budget, believe me.
Aid to nations
Ivory Coast -- $138M
Democratic Republic of the
Congo -- $213M
Ethiopia -- $584M
Ghana -- $175M
Kenya -- $714M
Liberia -- $219M
Malawi -- $179M
Mali -- $169M
Mozambique -- $415M
Namibia -- $103M
Nigeria -- $648M
Rwanda -- $241M
Senegal -- $137M
South Africa -- $586M
Sudan -- $440M
Tanzania -- $550M
Uganda -- $480M
Zambia -- $409M
Indonesia -- $228M
Philippines -- $133M
Vietnam -- $123M
Ukraine -- $124M
Obama's Poll Numbers Deservedly go Down, Down, Down....
Obama Skids to New Low in Q Poll
“42 percent”
-- President Obama’s job approval rating in a new Quinnipiac poll, the lowest ever.
President Obama is sliding precipitously in the polls as economic uncertainty, dissatisfaction with his handling of fiscal concerns and broad opposition to the Libya war reversed his post-midterm bounce and more.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama with his lowest-ever job approval rating at 42 percent and half of voters said Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Obama was tied with a hypothetical Republican nominee for 2012.
Obama’s job approval ratings last approached this level at the end of the acrimonious and unpopular drive for the president’s national health care law a year ago.
A 47 percent plurality opposed American involvement in the Libyan civil war compared to only 41 percent if favor. The numbers are nearly as bad as the 50 percent who oppose continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan.
Only 30 percent of voters overall and 23 percent of independents approved of the way Obama is handling the problem of deficit spending. Only 34 percent approved of his handling of the economy, down from a high of 40 percent in January.
This all bodes ill not just for the president’s reelection hopes but also for his ability to push forward on his agenda, including the new war, his troop surge in Afghanistan and the Democratic plan to force a government shutdown over Republican-backed spending cuts.
More worrying for Obama, though, should be a new Gallup poll out today that shows personal affection for the president in decline. Obama has always struggled with a gap between the esteem with which Americans viewed him and their rejection of his policies.
Now, the gap is closing as Americans grow less admiring of the president.
Only 52 percent said they viewed him as a strong ad decisive leader, down from 60 percent a year ago.
Also troubling for Obama, only 36 percent of respondents and 30- percent of independents said he has a clear plan for the country.
The Gallup poll found a consistently low 45 percent job approval rating for the president last week.
If the gap between Obama’s personal attributes and policies continues to shrink in the direction of the lower number, the president’s comeback will have been very brief indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“42 percent”
-- President Obama’s job approval rating in a new Quinnipiac poll, the lowest ever.
President Obama is sliding precipitously in the polls as economic uncertainty, dissatisfaction with his handling of fiscal concerns and broad opposition to the Libya war reversed his post-midterm bounce and more.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama with his lowest-ever job approval rating at 42 percent and half of voters said Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Obama was tied with a hypothetical Republican nominee for 2012.
Obama’s job approval ratings last approached this level at the end of the acrimonious and unpopular drive for the president’s national health care law a year ago.
A 47 percent plurality opposed American involvement in the Libyan civil war compared to only 41 percent if favor. The numbers are nearly as bad as the 50 percent who oppose continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan.
Only 30 percent of voters overall and 23 percent of independents approved of the way Obama is handling the problem of deficit spending. Only 34 percent approved of his handling of the economy, down from a high of 40 percent in January.
This all bodes ill not just for the president’s reelection hopes but also for his ability to push forward on his agenda, including the new war, his troop surge in Afghanistan and the Democratic plan to force a government shutdown over Republican-backed spending cuts.
More worrying for Obama, though, should be a new Gallup poll out today that shows personal affection for the president in decline. Obama has always struggled with a gap between the esteem with which Americans viewed him and their rejection of his policies.
Now, the gap is closing as Americans grow less admiring of the president.
Only 52 percent said they viewed him as a strong ad decisive leader, down from 60 percent a year ago.
Also troubling for Obama, only 36 percent of respondents and 30- percent of independents said he has a clear plan for the country.
The Gallup poll found a consistently low 45 percent job approval rating for the president last week.
If the gap between Obama’s personal attributes and policies continues to shrink in the direction of the lower number, the president’s comeback will have been very brief indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Stand Firm....
If the American People DO NOT understand that the Democrats are playing games with our future rather than trying do what the American People want..to significantly reduce spending and limiting the size of government! Reid is simply an old senile politician that is more interested in himself than doing what's right for the American People...
The Republicans need to stand firm, keep the riders IN and let the Democrats decide whether they will shut down the government or not! The Democrats started this by not passing a 2011 budget when they owned both houses of congress and the white house.
From Today's Heritage Foundation -
Harry Reid Chooses Shutdown Over Responsibility
You would think liberals in Congress have nothing better to do with their time. Amid a war in Libya, an effort to aid earthquake and tsunami-stricken Japan, a continuing war in Afghanistan, rising gas prices and endless unemployment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate are refusing to accept a modest agreement to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. And time is running short. What's Senator Reid wrangling over? A mere $51 billion in additional budget cuts, which amounts to a few days of government deficit spending.
But Reid's stonewalling isn't just about dollars and cents, or saving federal funding for a Cowboy Poetry Festival. Reid and the Democrats in Congress are setting the groundwork for a partial government shutdown so they can attempt to lay the blame at the feet of the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress and gain politically. They're simply putting electoral politics over the business of our nation.
As it stands today, Congress has until April 8 to reach an agreement on a long-term budget through the end of FY 2011, pass another short-term stopgap budget, or face a partial government shutdown. It might seem shocking that our representatives would cut it so close. But to understand how we got here, it's important to know where we've been.
Last May, then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced that, for the first time since 1974, the House would not pass a budget resolution. Never in modern history had a Congress ignored this basic mandated responsibility. Rather than stem the tide of big government spending, liberals in Congress opted to burn through borrowed cash as they pleased with no end in sight. But with the rise of the Tea Party movement and the November elections, the American people voiced their opposition to the big spending ways. They wanted Congress to get control of the budget.
Enter the 112th Congress and H.R. 1, the House Republicans' FY 2011 budget which cut spending by $61 billion. It passed the House some 39 days ago, and yet under Reid's leadership, the Senate has done nothing to move that bill forward or offer any serious alternative, for that matter. In the meantime, the House has passed two stopgap spending measures to temporarily fund the government, waiting for Reid to get his chamber in order.
So what are the Senate Democrats really up to? One doesn't need to read tea leaves, hire a psychic or consult a magic eight ball. Yesterday, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) gave America some insight into his party's game plan. The Washington Examiner reports that on a conference call yesterday, Schumer, without realizing reporters were already listening, instructed his fellow Democratic senators to tell the reporters that the GOP is refusing to negotiate. According to the Examiner, Schumer "told the group to make sure they label the GOP spending cuts as 'extreme.'" That is what "the caucus instructed [Schumer] to do last week."
The spending cuts, though, are anything but extreme. As House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said yesterday, "Chuck Schumer did us a favor, he exposed their tactic. … He's basically instructing his members to deem any spending cut unreasonable — any spending cut ... So clearly they are not serious." The Senate Democrats' inaction combined with their rhetoric means one thing: they want a government shutdown at all costs, and they want to blame it on Republicans. Their end goal: more spending and supposed political gain.
Yesterday, former Democrat National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean told the audience at a National Journal Insider's Conference: "If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it...I know who’s going to get blamed – we’ve been down this road before.” Dean continued: "From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown."
Reid's inaction, Schumer's political gamesmanship and Dean's blunt honesty tell the whole story. This is not about putting America on a smart fiscal path, it's about putting Democrats on a preferred political path. But it won't work.
Reid and Democratic leadership in the Senate need to recognize that they have a job to do. As Majority Leader Cantor said: "We've got bigger things to deal with. Time is up here." And with a $1.6 trillion deficit, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending are desperately needed. President Barack Obama, too, should show his face and weigh in on the stalemate. The president has been wrongly applauded for remaining silent by a complicit media; now is the time to show leadership. He can not continue to 'vote present' as he has throughout his career. And in anticipation of a partial shutdown, Congress should pass a Department of Defense appropriations bill to ensure that our military is fully funded.
Last November, the American people cast their vote for fiscal responsibility and a limited government that lives within its means. The many voices of the Tea Party are not entirely satisfied with a modest $61 billion in cuts. But they know that we need to make these substantive cuts and move on to the business of the next year's budget, where more reform will be possible. The Tea Party is not the problem.
For almost two months, they have watched many of their elected representatives play politics, rather than play ball. Senator Reid, it's time to do the right thing. Stop the political games and get to work so the government can keep fully operating and Congress can get on with the people's business.
The Republicans need to stand firm, keep the riders IN and let the Democrats decide whether they will shut down the government or not! The Democrats started this by not passing a 2011 budget when they owned both houses of congress and the white house.
From Today's Heritage Foundation -
Harry Reid Chooses Shutdown Over Responsibility
You would think liberals in Congress have nothing better to do with their time. Amid a war in Libya, an effort to aid earthquake and tsunami-stricken Japan, a continuing war in Afghanistan, rising gas prices and endless unemployment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate are refusing to accept a modest agreement to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. And time is running short. What's Senator Reid wrangling over? A mere $51 billion in additional budget cuts, which amounts to a few days of government deficit spending.
But Reid's stonewalling isn't just about dollars and cents, or saving federal funding for a Cowboy Poetry Festival. Reid and the Democrats in Congress are setting the groundwork for a partial government shutdown so they can attempt to lay the blame at the feet of the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress and gain politically. They're simply putting electoral politics over the business of our nation.
As it stands today, Congress has until April 8 to reach an agreement on a long-term budget through the end of FY 2011, pass another short-term stopgap budget, or face a partial government shutdown. It might seem shocking that our representatives would cut it so close. But to understand how we got here, it's important to know where we've been.
Last May, then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced that, for the first time since 1974, the House would not pass a budget resolution. Never in modern history had a Congress ignored this basic mandated responsibility. Rather than stem the tide of big government spending, liberals in Congress opted to burn through borrowed cash as they pleased with no end in sight. But with the rise of the Tea Party movement and the November elections, the American people voiced their opposition to the big spending ways. They wanted Congress to get control of the budget.
Enter the 112th Congress and H.R. 1, the House Republicans' FY 2011 budget which cut spending by $61 billion. It passed the House some 39 days ago, and yet under Reid's leadership, the Senate has done nothing to move that bill forward or offer any serious alternative, for that matter. In the meantime, the House has passed two stopgap spending measures to temporarily fund the government, waiting for Reid to get his chamber in order.
So what are the Senate Democrats really up to? One doesn't need to read tea leaves, hire a psychic or consult a magic eight ball. Yesterday, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) gave America some insight into his party's game plan. The Washington Examiner reports that on a conference call yesterday, Schumer, without realizing reporters were already listening, instructed his fellow Democratic senators to tell the reporters that the GOP is refusing to negotiate. According to the Examiner, Schumer "told the group to make sure they label the GOP spending cuts as 'extreme.'" That is what "the caucus instructed [Schumer] to do last week."
The spending cuts, though, are anything but extreme. As House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said yesterday, "Chuck Schumer did us a favor, he exposed their tactic. … He's basically instructing his members to deem any spending cut unreasonable — any spending cut ... So clearly they are not serious." The Senate Democrats' inaction combined with their rhetoric means one thing: they want a government shutdown at all costs, and they want to blame it on Republicans. Their end goal: more spending and supposed political gain.
Yesterday, former Democrat National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean told the audience at a National Journal Insider's Conference: "If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it...I know who’s going to get blamed – we’ve been down this road before.” Dean continued: "From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown."
Reid's inaction, Schumer's political gamesmanship and Dean's blunt honesty tell the whole story. This is not about putting America on a smart fiscal path, it's about putting Democrats on a preferred political path. But it won't work.
Reid and Democratic leadership in the Senate need to recognize that they have a job to do. As Majority Leader Cantor said: "We've got bigger things to deal with. Time is up here." And with a $1.6 trillion deficit, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending are desperately needed. President Barack Obama, too, should show his face and weigh in on the stalemate. The president has been wrongly applauded for remaining silent by a complicit media; now is the time to show leadership. He can not continue to 'vote present' as he has throughout his career. And in anticipation of a partial shutdown, Congress should pass a Department of Defense appropriations bill to ensure that our military is fully funded.
Last November, the American people cast their vote for fiscal responsibility and a limited government that lives within its means. The many voices of the Tea Party are not entirely satisfied with a modest $61 billion in cuts. But they know that we need to make these substantive cuts and move on to the business of the next year's budget, where more reform will be possible. The Tea Party is not the problem.
For almost two months, they have watched many of their elected representatives play politics, rather than play ball. Senator Reid, it's time to do the right thing. Stop the political games and get to work so the government can keep fully operating and Congress can get on with the people's business.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
A good article from Dick Morris....
OBAMA ON THE HOOK
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on March 29, 2011
With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble. If they work, he's OK. If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome. Consider the extent of his exposure:
* His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government. As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."
* His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.
* Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge. In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.
* Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
* Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession. No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.
That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate. But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster. He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny.
He is now truly the hostage of events. Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on March 29, 2011
With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble. If they work, he's OK. If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome. Consider the extent of his exposure:
* His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government. As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."
* His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.
* Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge. In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.
* Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
* Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession. No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.
That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate. But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster. He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny.
He is now truly the hostage of events. Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.
Rand Paul - A New Senator, makes more sense than Obama did last night!
Rand Paul makes a lot more sense than Obama did last night....Obama's got to go in 2012!
Obama's problem with the TRUTH!
Obama just has a real problem with the TRUTH....how can you stand up in front of the American People and just lie?
Democrats are not serious about addressing the budget and doing what the American People want.....
Just more evidence that the Democrats do NOT want to really negotiate and reduce spending....they are happy with the level of spending and size of government...they didn't get the message from the midterm elections....If they would stop "gaming" and start participating in real cuts we might get somewhere.....if the government shuts down, it's the Democrats fault...
Schumer coordinates Dem budget attack on GOP
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Democratic Senate leadership, got on a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning without realizing the reporters were already listening in. Schumer thought he was on a private line with four Democratic senators who were to talk with reporters about the current budget stalemate.
Schumer instructed the group, made up of Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Tom Carper of Delaware, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, to tell reporters that the GOP is refusing to negotiate.
He told the group to make sure they label the GOP spending cuts as "extreme."
"I always use extreme, Schumer said. "That is what the caucus instructed me to use."
Someone must have finally told Schumer that the media were listening and he stopped talking midsentence.
Here's a bit more of what he said about House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, according to my notes.
"The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right and so far over that there is no more fruitful negotiations," Schumer said on the call. "The only way we can avoid a shutdown is for Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the Tea Party wants. "
Schumer described Boehner as "in a box," over the budget negotiations.
The four senators came on the call after Schumer abruptly went silent and followed Schumer's script closely.
Coordinating the message is common in both parties, but it's uncommon for reporters to actually hear them rehearsing.
.
Schumer coordinates Dem budget attack on GOP
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Democratic Senate leadership, got on a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning without realizing the reporters were already listening in. Schumer thought he was on a private line with four Democratic senators who were to talk with reporters about the current budget stalemate.
Schumer instructed the group, made up of Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Tom Carper of Delaware, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, to tell reporters that the GOP is refusing to negotiate.
He told the group to make sure they label the GOP spending cuts as "extreme."
"I always use extreme, Schumer said. "That is what the caucus instructed me to use."
Someone must have finally told Schumer that the media were listening and he stopped talking midsentence.
Here's a bit more of what he said about House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, according to my notes.
"The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right and so far over that there is no more fruitful negotiations," Schumer said on the call. "The only way we can avoid a shutdown is for Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the Tea Party wants. "
Schumer described Boehner as "in a box," over the budget negotiations.
The four senators came on the call after Schumer abruptly went silent and followed Schumer's script closely.
Coordinating the message is common in both parties, but it's uncommon for reporters to actually hear them rehearsing.
.
Marines being deployed to Libya!
If Obama is NOT going to put any "boots on the ground" then why is he sending ground troop Marines to the Libya area???? Another half truth?....Another out right lie?...I do not trust this President!
Obama...totally incompetent to run the United States....actually totally incompetent to run a pet store!
More on Obama incompetence!
Obama in Libya
March 28, 2011 9:07 P.M. By Stanley Kurtz
As his speech tonight confirms, President Obama intervened in Libya to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. That is the long and short of it. Yes, he also hoped that his action would blunt Qaddafi’s counter-revolutionary stroke, thereby putting us “on the right side” of the emerging revolt in the Middle East (Hillary’s chief concern). Yet that was a secondary motive. Fundamentally, Obama was unwilling to go down in history as the man who allowed a massacre in Benghazi. He also wanted to set a precedent for future multilateral humanitarian interventions under United Nations auspices. Everything else follows from this core motive, which is represented within his administration by Samantha Power and Susan Rice, above all.
Obama is not a neoconservative democratizer. When he talks about our values of human rights and democracy, he has in mind the progressive vision of a UN-dictated rights regime that constrains and encroaches upon national sovereignty, including our own. This is the portion of his policy goals in Libya (drawn from advisors like Power) that he does not explicitly spell out. It depends on doctrines like “responsibility to protect,” liable to future expansion and abuse by international bodies. Instead of going into all this, Obama merely highlights the “historic” UN resolution that enshrines the new doctrine, and speaks of his worry that a failure to act would have rendered the UN’s “writ” meaningless.
There are immense problems with all of this, of course, both from the standpoint of American interests more conventionally defined, and from the standpoint of humanitarianism. In a tribal civil war, those we have saved are as likely to massacre Qaddafi’s supporters, should they take power with our help, as Qaddafi was to kill them. Getting out from our moral and military responsibility for that will be a neat trick.
As far as our “conventional” national interests go, whether you’re an eager democratizer or a realist, nothing Obama is doing makes much sense. The point is, Obama was unwilling to let Benghazi fall under Qaddafi’s power, and he’s trying to avoid excessive American involvement beyond that simple act. He would love for all the uncomfortable consequences of his humanitarian gesture to go away. But of course they won’t. Saving Benghazi is not a simple act. It has massive ramifications and complications for humanitarianism, for democracy promotion or the lack thereof, and for America’s economic and military interests traditionally defined. On all this, Obama is simply juggling the complicated results of his humanitarian gesture as best he can.
Let’s go back to that fateful Tuesday meeting. Benghazi was about to fall. Hillary had just been rebuffed in her efforts to meet with the young demonstrators who brought down Mubarak. She had also been told by other Egyptians that they wanted Qaddafi stopped, because his success against his foes would break their movement’s momentum in the region. Obama saw in all this a chance in that to square the circle of our values and our interests, the conflict between which had been causing him no end of difficulty and embarrassment for weeks.
By stopping the massacre, he saved his good name and helped Hillary in her efforts to gain favor with the revolutionaries in Egypt and beyond. (The real reason Hillary was rebuffed, I maintain, was the bitter anti-Americanism of the Tahrir Square demonstrators who shunned her. They cannot be appeased, although Hillary falsely believed they could be.) Obama’s national security advisors looked at our conventional interests and saw the mess of constraints and contradictions intervention would bring. Obama famously overruled “the men,” going instead with his troika of female advisors, and it’s all played out to form since.
Obama has saved his good name on Benghazi for the history books. The young Egyptians still don’t like us, and they aren’t in charge anymore anyway. An alliance of the military and the Muslim Brotherhood is now running the show in Egypt instead. As for our more conventional interests and military position, Libya is a contradictory mess, as Obama’s own national security advisors foresaw. It was all predictable and predicted (except for Hillary’s naive take on Egypt). Obama made his choice and we are living with the consequences now.
Obama in Libya
March 28, 2011 9:07 P.M. By Stanley Kurtz
As his speech tonight confirms, President Obama intervened in Libya to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. That is the long and short of it. Yes, he also hoped that his action would blunt Qaddafi’s counter-revolutionary stroke, thereby putting us “on the right side” of the emerging revolt in the Middle East (Hillary’s chief concern). Yet that was a secondary motive. Fundamentally, Obama was unwilling to go down in history as the man who allowed a massacre in Benghazi. He also wanted to set a precedent for future multilateral humanitarian interventions under United Nations auspices. Everything else follows from this core motive, which is represented within his administration by Samantha Power and Susan Rice, above all.
Obama is not a neoconservative democratizer. When he talks about our values of human rights and democracy, he has in mind the progressive vision of a UN-dictated rights regime that constrains and encroaches upon national sovereignty, including our own. This is the portion of his policy goals in Libya (drawn from advisors like Power) that he does not explicitly spell out. It depends on doctrines like “responsibility to protect,” liable to future expansion and abuse by international bodies. Instead of going into all this, Obama merely highlights the “historic” UN resolution that enshrines the new doctrine, and speaks of his worry that a failure to act would have rendered the UN’s “writ” meaningless.
There are immense problems with all of this, of course, both from the standpoint of American interests more conventionally defined, and from the standpoint of humanitarianism. In a tribal civil war, those we have saved are as likely to massacre Qaddafi’s supporters, should they take power with our help, as Qaddafi was to kill them. Getting out from our moral and military responsibility for that will be a neat trick.
As far as our “conventional” national interests go, whether you’re an eager democratizer or a realist, nothing Obama is doing makes much sense. The point is, Obama was unwilling to let Benghazi fall under Qaddafi’s power, and he’s trying to avoid excessive American involvement beyond that simple act. He would love for all the uncomfortable consequences of his humanitarian gesture to go away. But of course they won’t. Saving Benghazi is not a simple act. It has massive ramifications and complications for humanitarianism, for democracy promotion or the lack thereof, and for America’s economic and military interests traditionally defined. On all this, Obama is simply juggling the complicated results of his humanitarian gesture as best he can.
Let’s go back to that fateful Tuesday meeting. Benghazi was about to fall. Hillary had just been rebuffed in her efforts to meet with the young demonstrators who brought down Mubarak. She had also been told by other Egyptians that they wanted Qaddafi stopped, because his success against his foes would break their movement’s momentum in the region. Obama saw in all this a chance in that to square the circle of our values and our interests, the conflict between which had been causing him no end of difficulty and embarrassment for weeks.
By stopping the massacre, he saved his good name and helped Hillary in her efforts to gain favor with the revolutionaries in Egypt and beyond. (The real reason Hillary was rebuffed, I maintain, was the bitter anti-Americanism of the Tahrir Square demonstrators who shunned her. They cannot be appeased, although Hillary falsely believed they could be.) Obama’s national security advisors looked at our conventional interests and saw the mess of constraints and contradictions intervention would bring. Obama famously overruled “the men,” going instead with his troika of female advisors, and it’s all played out to form since.
Obama has saved his good name on Benghazi for the history books. The young Egyptians still don’t like us, and they aren’t in charge anymore anyway. An alliance of the military and the Muslim Brotherhood is now running the show in Egypt instead. As for our more conventional interests and military position, Libya is a contradictory mess, as Obama’s own national security advisors foresaw. It was all predictable and predicted (except for Hillary’s naive take on Egypt). Obama made his choice and we are living with the consequences now.
Obama....didn't listen to military leaders, but listened to three women to go to war in Libya!
Obama is certainly NOT the sign of a leader....he followed three women rather than listening to his military leaders and pushed the nation into the war in Libya....who's running the nation?....Obama or Hillary, Rice and Power?
Backer of attack credits Obama for Libyans’ uprising
By Andy Thibault - Special to the Washington Times
White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.
In a speech Monday at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
“The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated,” Ms. Power said, speaking to a friendly crowd of about 130 people. “These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street.”
Ms. Power sidestepped questions about reports she was among three female Obama administration aides who pressed the president to go to war in Libya.
On the military operation to impose a no-fly zone, however, Ms. Power, said that “force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.”
Ms. Power said the international coalition acted to save the rebel-stronghold city of Benghazi because of Col. Gadhafi’s attacks. “On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion” of being anti-government rebels, she said.
“To put Libyan events in historical perspective,” she said, “in Libya, it took us nine days impose asset freezes and travel bans,” while pressuring regimes in the Balkans and other places took years.
News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.
Mrs. Clinton on Sunday defended the Libyan intervention on ABC, stating that “we learned a lot” from not doing enough to stop genocide in Rwanda and ethnic killings in the Balkans in the 1990s.
The Ireland-born Ms. Power is the author of the 2002 book, “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” which won a Pulitzer Prize.
Ms. Power is an advocate of the United Nations resolution called “Responsibility to Protect,” or “RtoP,” which focuses on efforts to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
Ms. Rice, who served as assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, has said her greatest regret was not pushing hard enough for international intervention in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, when hundreds of thousands were killed in a civil war.
Ms. Rice was instrumental in organizing the successful U.N. vote that included the backing of the Arab League to establish the Libya no-fly zone.
Johanna Mendelson Forman, a humanitarian-affairs specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she understood the reluctance of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military leaders, including National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to launch military action in Libya.
“It’s very hard to figure out where this takes you,” Ms. Mendelson Forman said. “No one has the stomach for a continued ground presence in Libya.”
Ms. Mendelson Forman, who served as an adviser to the U.N. Mission in Haiti, also played down the notion of fierce women pressuring reluctant men in the Obama administration. “Hillary Clinton would dismiss it as ridiculous,” she said.
The intervention in Libya has spawned numerous questions, including the limits of presidential power, the decision-making process on where to engage in military action, mission creep and the role of advocates for implementing “RtoP.”
“I thought we were past ‘If women ruled the world, there’d be peace,’ ” said Mai-Linh K. Hong, a Virginia lawyer who has written extensively on the genocide in Rwanda. “Media reminds us we aren’t.”
Ms. Mendelson Forman acknowledged there is no clear end in sight for the Libya action. “Once you’ve gone in,” she asked, “what is the commitment to stay?”
Ms. Power started her government career as a Senate aide to Mr. Obama. In March 2008, she resigned from the Obama presidential campaign after she was quoted in the Scotsman newspaper as referring to Mrs. Clinton, then a presidential rival, as a “monster.”
Backer of attack credits Obama for Libyans’ uprising
By Andy Thibault - Special to the Washington Times
White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.
In a speech Monday at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
“The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated,” Ms. Power said, speaking to a friendly crowd of about 130 people. “These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street.”
Ms. Power sidestepped questions about reports she was among three female Obama administration aides who pressed the president to go to war in Libya.
On the military operation to impose a no-fly zone, however, Ms. Power, said that “force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.”
Ms. Power said the international coalition acted to save the rebel-stronghold city of Benghazi because of Col. Gadhafi’s attacks. “On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion” of being anti-government rebels, she said.
“To put Libyan events in historical perspective,” she said, “in Libya, it took us nine days impose asset freezes and travel bans,” while pressuring regimes in the Balkans and other places took years.
News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.
Mrs. Clinton on Sunday defended the Libyan intervention on ABC, stating that “we learned a lot” from not doing enough to stop genocide in Rwanda and ethnic killings in the Balkans in the 1990s.
The Ireland-born Ms. Power is the author of the 2002 book, “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” which won a Pulitzer Prize.
Ms. Power is an advocate of the United Nations resolution called “Responsibility to Protect,” or “RtoP,” which focuses on efforts to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
Ms. Rice, who served as assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, has said her greatest regret was not pushing hard enough for international intervention in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, when hundreds of thousands were killed in a civil war.
Ms. Rice was instrumental in organizing the successful U.N. vote that included the backing of the Arab League to establish the Libya no-fly zone.
Johanna Mendelson Forman, a humanitarian-affairs specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she understood the reluctance of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military leaders, including National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to launch military action in Libya.
“It’s very hard to figure out where this takes you,” Ms. Mendelson Forman said. “No one has the stomach for a continued ground presence in Libya.”
Ms. Mendelson Forman, who served as an adviser to the U.N. Mission in Haiti, also played down the notion of fierce women pressuring reluctant men in the Obama administration. “Hillary Clinton would dismiss it as ridiculous,” she said.
The intervention in Libya has spawned numerous questions, including the limits of presidential power, the decision-making process on where to engage in military action, mission creep and the role of advocates for implementing “RtoP.”
“I thought we were past ‘If women ruled the world, there’d be peace,’ ” said Mai-Linh K. Hong, a Virginia lawyer who has written extensively on the genocide in Rwanda. “Media reminds us we aren’t.”
Ms. Mendelson Forman acknowledged there is no clear end in sight for the Libya action. “Once you’ve gone in,” she asked, “what is the commitment to stay?”
Ms. Power started her government career as a Senate aide to Mr. Obama. In March 2008, she resigned from the Obama presidential campaign after she was quoted in the Scotsman newspaper as referring to Mrs. Clinton, then a presidential rival, as a “monster.”
Obama, Biden and Reid - More interested in placing blame than achieving results for the American People...
It's such a shame that Obama, Biden and Reid are more interested in trying to blame the Republicans than carrying out the will of the American People and actually cutting government spending....For the Democrats it's still the same old game of trying to place blame rather than achieve results...After all Biden is supposedly in charge of this for Obama and he's been traveling all over the world...hobnobbing with the New York Yankees and doing everything possible EXCEPT working diligently on the budget issues. It's obvious that the democrats didn't get the message from November midterm elections.....We have to make certain that they get our message in 2012 and give the White House back to a Conservative Republican.
Dems Prepare to Profit from Shutdown
By Chris Stirewalt Published March 29, 2011
On Shutdown, Dems Have Talking Points But No Plan
“It’s hard to get a straight answer from Democrats these days because their position changes almost daily, depending on whether you talk to the White House or Senate Democrats.” -- Senior House GOP aide to Power Play
The assumption in Washington is that the government will shut down when the current stopgap funding measure expires on April 8.
The questions now at hand are – For how long? And who gets the blame?
Democrats are working on a plan that would allow them to say they tried to meet Republicans halfway on spending cuts. This is similar to the earlier effort in which Democrats said they were meeting Republicans halfway because they were abandoning $47 billion in spending requests sought by President Obama.
The new effort on the Democratic side involves taking cuts already made and adjustments in other expenditures outside the realm of Republican cuts – annualized changes in farm subsidy rates, for example – to claim that they are proposing half of the $61 billion in total reductions sought by the GOP.
It looks like a mess, but the goal isn’t good bookkeeping. The goal is to divide the House Republican caucus and position themselves to profit politically. While there is no sign that Senate Democrats and the White House have a real accord on cuts, the message from Majority Leader Harry Reid and his team is already in place on the assumption that some kind of plan will eventually be produced.
The narrative from Reid and others is that Democrats and moderate Republicans want to meet halfway, but that a brigade of Tea Party savages is preventing them. He paints the Republican leadership as hostages who would gladly sell out but are politically afraid to do so.
It’s not clear if Reid’s primary intent is just to insult Speaker John Boehner or to rile up freshmen members, but either way, the ultimate goal is still the same – divide and conquer.
While this narrative is very attractive to reporters who have been flogging Tea Party rebellion stories since three months before the 2010 elections, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will work in the long run.
For the Reid plan to work, Senate Democrats actually have to cough up a plan. It doesn’t have to succeed, but it has to get past the Senate, or at least have the unified support of the body’s 53 Democratic members. The Democratic caucus in the Senate smacked down Reid’s last gambit -- $6.5 billion in cuts for the rest of the year.
“First, they didn’t believe one dime in spending could be cut. Then they relented and agreed to cut $10 billion after Republicans forced the issue. Then Democrats said they could offer $11 billion more, but most of it was gimmicks,” a senior House GOP staffer told Power Play. “And suddenly, days later, they say they can offer $20 billion, but they won’t share it with anyone. Republicans have passed a credible plan; it’s called H.R. 1. Where is the Democrats’ bill, and where is their plan?”
Vice President Joe Biden huddles again today with the administration’s budget team in a bid to cobble together a cuts package that Democrats can again tout as meeting the Republicans halfway.
But as in the last effort, success will depend on whether the cuts are real and if moderate Senate Democrats will go along. Democrats failed on both counts last time, but Biden and Reid are now hoping that a bigger number will get them the support of most of their caucus and maybe a few moderate Republicans.
But for now, Reid and Biden are betting on the come. They are bashing Tea Partiers and expressing sympathy for the hostage Boehner in expectation that the Senate will fall into line.
But as more Senate Democrats join the movement to use the current crisis as leverage to get support for entitlement reform or even balanced budget legislation, the administration and Reid may find a limited audience for a plan that looks like a political stunt designed to force a government shutdown and place the blame on Republicans.
Unless President Obama and Reid are willing to expand the playing field on fiscal issues, it seems unlikely that they can avoid a government shutdown or be seen as credible on the deficit.
The Democrats who have argued that a shutdown would be a political opportunity may have led their party into this war of words without an exit strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems Prepare to Profit from Shutdown
By Chris Stirewalt Published March 29, 2011
On Shutdown, Dems Have Talking Points But No Plan
“It’s hard to get a straight answer from Democrats these days because their position changes almost daily, depending on whether you talk to the White House or Senate Democrats.” -- Senior House GOP aide to Power Play
The assumption in Washington is that the government will shut down when the current stopgap funding measure expires on April 8.
The questions now at hand are – For how long? And who gets the blame?
Democrats are working on a plan that would allow them to say they tried to meet Republicans halfway on spending cuts. This is similar to the earlier effort in which Democrats said they were meeting Republicans halfway because they were abandoning $47 billion in spending requests sought by President Obama.
The new effort on the Democratic side involves taking cuts already made and adjustments in other expenditures outside the realm of Republican cuts – annualized changes in farm subsidy rates, for example – to claim that they are proposing half of the $61 billion in total reductions sought by the GOP.
It looks like a mess, but the goal isn’t good bookkeeping. The goal is to divide the House Republican caucus and position themselves to profit politically. While there is no sign that Senate Democrats and the White House have a real accord on cuts, the message from Majority Leader Harry Reid and his team is already in place on the assumption that some kind of plan will eventually be produced.
The narrative from Reid and others is that Democrats and moderate Republicans want to meet halfway, but that a brigade of Tea Party savages is preventing them. He paints the Republican leadership as hostages who would gladly sell out but are politically afraid to do so.
It’s not clear if Reid’s primary intent is just to insult Speaker John Boehner or to rile up freshmen members, but either way, the ultimate goal is still the same – divide and conquer.
While this narrative is very attractive to reporters who have been flogging Tea Party rebellion stories since three months before the 2010 elections, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will work in the long run.
For the Reid plan to work, Senate Democrats actually have to cough up a plan. It doesn’t have to succeed, but it has to get past the Senate, or at least have the unified support of the body’s 53 Democratic members. The Democratic caucus in the Senate smacked down Reid’s last gambit -- $6.5 billion in cuts for the rest of the year.
“First, they didn’t believe one dime in spending could be cut. Then they relented and agreed to cut $10 billion after Republicans forced the issue. Then Democrats said they could offer $11 billion more, but most of it was gimmicks,” a senior House GOP staffer told Power Play. “And suddenly, days later, they say they can offer $20 billion, but they won’t share it with anyone. Republicans have passed a credible plan; it’s called H.R. 1. Where is the Democrats’ bill, and where is their plan?”
Vice President Joe Biden huddles again today with the administration’s budget team in a bid to cobble together a cuts package that Democrats can again tout as meeting the Republicans halfway.
But as in the last effort, success will depend on whether the cuts are real and if moderate Senate Democrats will go along. Democrats failed on both counts last time, but Biden and Reid are now hoping that a bigger number will get them the support of most of their caucus and maybe a few moderate Republicans.
But for now, Reid and Biden are betting on the come. They are bashing Tea Partiers and expressing sympathy for the hostage Boehner in expectation that the Senate will fall into line.
But as more Senate Democrats join the movement to use the current crisis as leverage to get support for entitlement reform or even balanced budget legislation, the administration and Reid may find a limited audience for a plan that looks like a political stunt designed to force a government shutdown and place the blame on Republicans.
Unless President Obama and Reid are willing to expand the playing field on fiscal issues, it seems unlikely that they can avoid a government shutdown or be seen as credible on the deficit.
The Democrats who have argued that a shutdown would be a political opportunity may have led their party into this war of words without an exit strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A weak Speech by Obama that didn't answer much!
A weak, deceptive speech last night that leaves as many questions in the minds of the American People as there were before the speech.....again a lot of half truths...not much real honesty with the American People...no clear explanation why he would NOT have gone to the Congress in advance of taking action..and why it took him NINE DAYS to address the American People....but of course he was vacationing for spring break in Rio with Michelle and the girls....What a President????? Do you think he has his priorities screwed up????
Obama Leaves Libya Questions Unanswered
Last night, nine days after U.S. military operations against Muammar Qadhafi began, President Barack Obama took to the stage at the National Defense University to finally explain his rationale for intervention in Libya's civil war. He described the brutality of the Qadhafi regime, the United States' interests in the conflict, the limited nature of U.S. military involvement, and the role the "international community" would undertake in finishing the job in Libya and rebuilding the country. It was a speech more appropriately delivered at the onset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, and unfortunately it's a speech that leaves a fundamental question unanswered: what's the way forward?
From the outset of operations in Libya, the best option was always "to minimize the commitment of the U.S. military, look after the best interests of Libya's civilian population, and limit the spread of terrorism and instability throughout the region." While the president promised last night to pursue such a course—the real challenge now begins—and there are still far too few details of how the White House will deliver on these promises.
The tasks going forward that must be accomplished are clear: (1) keeping Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice; (2) maintaining a military presence to keep Qadhafi's forces from going back on the offensive; and (3) identifying, supporting and sustaining a legitimate opposition that brings democracy to Libya, fights the spread of terrorism, and looks after the humanitarian needs and the human rights of the peoples under its control. We knew these before the president's speech—it is still no clearer on how they will be accomplished other than to turn the responsibility over to the "international community."
Though the president noted that on Wednesday NATO will assume greater responsibilities for operations in Libya, it remains that U.S. forces are still engaged in combat—and administration officials have acknowledged that will likely continue for months. The Administration has had ample time to develop its plans for the employment of U.S. forces and should be briefing leaders in Congress on them now so that a determination can be made if a resolution to employ force is now required or should be in the future.
While President Obama used last night's speech to explain (or justify) his Libya rationale, he also used it to take a shot at President George W. Bush's actions in Iraq, likely in an effort to assure his liberal allies that he is not his predecessor. "Regime change [in Iraq] took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said. This dig on President Bush was gratuitous, unnecessary, and could well be a statement the president comes to regret as much as the "Mission Accomplished" banner draped on the carrier deck after the invasion of Iraq. The president has promised that the "international community" will do all the dirty work from here on out. Before the President takes a bow, he ought to be pretty confident he can deliver on this tall order.
There are some who are likening President Obama's actions in Libya to President George W. Bush's foreign policy—the Bush Doctrine. But unlike his predecessor, President Obama has not consulted Congress, has generally failed to communicate his mission, and has demonstrated a willingness to bow to the will of the "international community," rather than act in the best interests of the United States. The president last night bent over backwards to describe his strong leadership on Libya, but the commander in chief protests too much and has promised a great deal. It will be no small task to build a coalition that can keep Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice, prevent his forces from going on the offensive, and bring stability and democracy to Libya while preventing the spread of terrorism. That will take more than a speech and rhetorical reliance on the "international community." It will take real leadership to deliver on those promises.
Obama Leaves Libya Questions Unanswered
Last night, nine days after U.S. military operations against Muammar Qadhafi began, President Barack Obama took to the stage at the National Defense University to finally explain his rationale for intervention in Libya's civil war. He described the brutality of the Qadhafi regime, the United States' interests in the conflict, the limited nature of U.S. military involvement, and the role the "international community" would undertake in finishing the job in Libya and rebuilding the country. It was a speech more appropriately delivered at the onset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, and unfortunately it's a speech that leaves a fundamental question unanswered: what's the way forward?
From the outset of operations in Libya, the best option was always "to minimize the commitment of the U.S. military, look after the best interests of Libya's civilian population, and limit the spread of terrorism and instability throughout the region." While the president promised last night to pursue such a course—the real challenge now begins—and there are still far too few details of how the White House will deliver on these promises.
The tasks going forward that must be accomplished are clear: (1) keeping Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice; (2) maintaining a military presence to keep Qadhafi's forces from going back on the offensive; and (3) identifying, supporting and sustaining a legitimate opposition that brings democracy to Libya, fights the spread of terrorism, and looks after the humanitarian needs and the human rights of the peoples under its control. We knew these before the president's speech—it is still no clearer on how they will be accomplished other than to turn the responsibility over to the "international community."
Though the president noted that on Wednesday NATO will assume greater responsibilities for operations in Libya, it remains that U.S. forces are still engaged in combat—and administration officials have acknowledged that will likely continue for months. The Administration has had ample time to develop its plans for the employment of U.S. forces and should be briefing leaders in Congress on them now so that a determination can be made if a resolution to employ force is now required or should be in the future.
While President Obama used last night's speech to explain (or justify) his Libya rationale, he also used it to take a shot at President George W. Bush's actions in Iraq, likely in an effort to assure his liberal allies that he is not his predecessor. "Regime change [in Iraq] took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said. This dig on President Bush was gratuitous, unnecessary, and could well be a statement the president comes to regret as much as the "Mission Accomplished" banner draped on the carrier deck after the invasion of Iraq. The president has promised that the "international community" will do all the dirty work from here on out. Before the President takes a bow, he ought to be pretty confident he can deliver on this tall order.
There are some who are likening President Obama's actions in Libya to President George W. Bush's foreign policy—the Bush Doctrine. But unlike his predecessor, President Obama has not consulted Congress, has generally failed to communicate his mission, and has demonstrated a willingness to bow to the will of the "international community," rather than act in the best interests of the United States. The president last night bent over backwards to describe his strong leadership on Libya, but the commander in chief protests too much and has promised a great deal. It will be no small task to build a coalition that can keep Qadhafi isolated until he is brought to justice, prevent his forces from going on the offensive, and bring stability and democracy to Libya while preventing the spread of terrorism. That will take more than a speech and rhetorical reliance on the "international community." It will take real leadership to deliver on those promises.
Obama - Problems with the Truth AGAIN!
It's such a shame that we have a President in Obama that just can't tell the truth!...Once again it's all spin...all propaganda and little honesty....We need a real change away from Obama in 2012!
FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya Claims Fit the Facts
Published March 28, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the United States in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Muammar Qaddafi's forces.
In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning over the reins to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
Also, the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion, coordinated or not, to advance an offensive.
Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his televised address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:
------
OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors -- Britain and France -- combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
------
OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Qaddafi's forces -- and on the supply and communications links that support them -- is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said, "We continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
------
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
------
OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance."
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Qaddafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."
Only small numbers of Qaddafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. Gortney said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."
------
OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Qaddafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so -- by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."
He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"
Now, such questions are coming at him.
FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya Claims Fit the Facts
Published March 28, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the United States in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Muammar Qaddafi's forces.
In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning over the reins to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
Also, the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion, coordinated or not, to advance an offensive.
Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his televised address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:
------
OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors -- Britain and France -- combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
------
OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Qaddafi's forces -- and on the supply and communications links that support them -- is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said, "We continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
------
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
------
OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance."
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Qaddafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."
Only small numbers of Qaddafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. Gortney said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."
------
OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Qaddafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so -- by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."
He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"
Now, such questions are coming at him.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Obama, Biden...absentee leadership when it comes to cutting spending!
Biden has been simply a JOKE when it comes to leading the Democrat charge on the budget....he's been out of town...out of country...locking up media people in closets so they can't talk to folks at fundraisers and totally ignoring the will of the American People to cut spending....Obama's just as bad...instead of getting engaged he's his old absentee self going to Rio on spring break with the kids and hosting music functions at the White House.....It's obvious that Obama, Biden and this Administration didn't get the message from last November's midterms....And now they cry when the new CR deadline is up and demand another....the Republicans need to stick their guns and demand the $61 Billion reduction in spending...they; need to show the American People that there's been little to NO action from the administration and if the Democrats do not want to go along with it LET THEM shut down the government....the American People want both parties to work together, but it's been obvious for WEEKS that the democrats are not taking this seriously and frankly probably don't give a damn....
On budget, Joe Biden plays waiting game
By MATT NEGRIN | 3/28/11 3:57 PM EDT
President Barack Obama said in early March that Vice President Joe Biden would help seal an overdue budget deal with Republicans. Instead of playing a major role in the negotiations, however, Biden has been monitoring the debate from a distance — and waiting for the call to send him in as the closer.
Republicans are complaining that Biden has been virtually invisible since an initial March 4 meeting to start negotiations on reaching a budget deal, and several GOP offices confirmed to POLITICO that he hasn’t met with lawmakers since then. Some of them say that Biden’s absence confirms lingering suspicions that the White House isn’t serious about negotiating over the budget, even though a government shutdown on April 8 is at stake.
Others in the GOP have mocked Biden for leaving for Russia, Finland and Moldova just after joining the budget talks in early March. And last week, Biden showed up at the New York Yankees’ spring training camp while stumping for Sen. Bill Nelson’s reelection in Florida.
Instead of working on the budget, “he’s playing baseball,” chided Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. Buck later said Boehner’s office isn’t making any “official complaints” about Biden’s role, and that the talks can move forward without the vice president – as long as the vice president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are “of the same mind.”
But in the last few days, Biden seems to have been moving at a quicker pace.
The White House responded to the narrative of Biden being detached by quickly announcing that he had called Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Moscow. And the White House told POLITICO that Biden called Boehner and Reid last Thursday.
“The White House has been in daily communication with budget negotiators – and discussions have been ongoing at many levels,” Elizabeth Alexander, a Biden spokeswoman, said in a statement Thursday. Alexander wouldn’t elaborate, but she later added that Biden talked extensively about the budget with Republicans during a St. Patrick’s Day lunch on Capitol Hill and afterward.
Democrats also note Biden has called members of Congress every day, has reviewed budget proposals that have surfaced between the two sides and is waiting for staff-level meetings to conclude before he brings the leaders of the debate together to finish the deal. A Democrat familiar with the process told POLITICO that since Obama designated Biden as the budget point man on March 2, the vice president has been weighing in if things aren’t “on track.”
An Obama administration aide said that after 64 senators urged Obama in a letter to more aggressively address spending cuts, Biden called the two senators circulating the letter: Mike Johanns, a Republican, and Michael Bennet, a Democrat. Biden gets daily updates on the talks from Jack Lew, the administration’s budget director as well as senior economic adviser Gene Sperling and top White House advisers Pete Rouse, Rob Nabors and Phil Schiliro, the aide said.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
In addition, Lew and Nabors have been sitting down with their counterparts in the Capitol, the Democrat said.
Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate before becoming vice president, has worked late-inning heroics before during congressional negotiations. He helped orchestrate the deal in the lame-duck session of Congress that extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and a year ago he helped persuade moderate Democrats who wanted to create a deficit commission to vote for raising the national debt limit.
A former White House official recalled Biden’s flair for intervening in the Democrats’ own political spat over the debt limit, noting that he hosted Nancy Pelosi, who was House speaker at the time, and Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, at his residence at least twice to broker a deal.
“If there is a needle to be threaded, he’s pretty good at doing it,” the ex-official said — but added, “this is much harder this time.”
On budget, Joe Biden plays waiting game
By MATT NEGRIN | 3/28/11 3:57 PM EDT
President Barack Obama said in early March that Vice President Joe Biden would help seal an overdue budget deal with Republicans. Instead of playing a major role in the negotiations, however, Biden has been monitoring the debate from a distance — and waiting for the call to send him in as the closer.
Republicans are complaining that Biden has been virtually invisible since an initial March 4 meeting to start negotiations on reaching a budget deal, and several GOP offices confirmed to POLITICO that he hasn’t met with lawmakers since then. Some of them say that Biden’s absence confirms lingering suspicions that the White House isn’t serious about negotiating over the budget, even though a government shutdown on April 8 is at stake.
Others in the GOP have mocked Biden for leaving for Russia, Finland and Moldova just after joining the budget talks in early March. And last week, Biden showed up at the New York Yankees’ spring training camp while stumping for Sen. Bill Nelson’s reelection in Florida.
Instead of working on the budget, “he’s playing baseball,” chided Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. Buck later said Boehner’s office isn’t making any “official complaints” about Biden’s role, and that the talks can move forward without the vice president – as long as the vice president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are “of the same mind.”
But in the last few days, Biden seems to have been moving at a quicker pace.
The White House responded to the narrative of Biden being detached by quickly announcing that he had called Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Moscow. And the White House told POLITICO that Biden called Boehner and Reid last Thursday.
“The White House has been in daily communication with budget negotiators – and discussions have been ongoing at many levels,” Elizabeth Alexander, a Biden spokeswoman, said in a statement Thursday. Alexander wouldn’t elaborate, but she later added that Biden talked extensively about the budget with Republicans during a St. Patrick’s Day lunch on Capitol Hill and afterward.
Democrats also note Biden has called members of Congress every day, has reviewed budget proposals that have surfaced between the two sides and is waiting for staff-level meetings to conclude before he brings the leaders of the debate together to finish the deal. A Democrat familiar with the process told POLITICO that since Obama designated Biden as the budget point man on March 2, the vice president has been weighing in if things aren’t “on track.”
An Obama administration aide said that after 64 senators urged Obama in a letter to more aggressively address spending cuts, Biden called the two senators circulating the letter: Mike Johanns, a Republican, and Michael Bennet, a Democrat. Biden gets daily updates on the talks from Jack Lew, the administration’s budget director as well as senior economic adviser Gene Sperling and top White House advisers Pete Rouse, Rob Nabors and Phil Schiliro, the aide said.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
In addition, Lew and Nabors have been sitting down with their counterparts in the Capitol, the Democrat said.
Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate before becoming vice president, has worked late-inning heroics before during congressional negotiations. He helped orchestrate the deal in the lame-duck session of Congress that extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and a year ago he helped persuade moderate Democrats who wanted to create a deficit commission to vote for raising the national debt limit.
A former White House official recalled Biden’s flair for intervening in the Democrats’ own political spat over the debt limit, noting that he hosted Nancy Pelosi, who was House speaker at the time, and Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, at his residence at least twice to broker a deal.
“If there is a needle to be threaded, he’s pretty good at doing it,” the ex-official said — but added, “this is much harder this time.”
More Evidence that Obama, Biden and this Administration is ANYTHING BUT open and transparent...despite the spin!
More evidence Obama, Biden and this Administration is anything BUT open and transparent! ....Where is this Nazi Germany???
Is Biden’s closet packed with media skeletons? Reporter one of many to be ‘caged’ by VP
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 11:43 AM 03/28/2011 | Updated: 4:07 PM 03/28/2011
Vice President Joe Biden’s staff may have apologized for stowing a news reporter away in a closet during a fundraiser last weekend, but Saturday’s incident wasn’t the first time the VP kept a member of the media stuck in a tiny room during an event.
In March 2010, Baltimore Sun reporter Justin Fenton was on duty to cover a Biden fundraiser in Maryland, and was forced to wait for an hour in what he jokingly called a “cage” that was guarded by the vice president’s staff.
“Your pool reporter awaited the beginning of the event by sitting in a 5-by-8 foot, Asian-themed room with mirrors on the walls and family photos in small frames,” Fenton wrote in his pool report during a fundraiser hosted by David S. Cordish, a Baltimore-based real estate developer. “Cordish three times brought guests, including VPOTUS, into the room to show off a collection of books about opera singer Rosa Ponselle.”
Fenton highlighted his experience in a post on Twitter Sunday night, after Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers sent pictures to the Drudge Report from a storage closet he was forced to work from during a Biden fundraiser for Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
Powers declined an interview Monday, telling TheDC that he was “trying to climb back into my closet.”
“Story getting lot of play on Drudge, though I had to sit in closed closet during Biden app. at Cordish fundraiser too,” Fenton said via Twitter.
Fenton was allowed to leave the room once to hear Biden’s speech, and was ushered out again the moment he finished.
“The door was closed the whole time, and far from an apology the host came into the room three times and I was expected to stand against the room the whole time as he showed off his collection of books about this opera singer,” Fenton told The Daily Caller.
“It was a mirrored room, and I’m standing there and I can’t hear anything and I don’t know what’s going on outside. And the door pops open and I assume it’s one of his staffers coming in to give me an update and all the sudden the vice president walks in,” Fenton explained. “He stood there, sort of looked at me. He didn’t nod at me or say hi or anything. He hosted, and then he showed him this little book and that was that.”
Fenton added that he understood that it was a private event at a donor’s residence, so it was understandable that the vice president’s staff didn’t want a reporter listening in on conversations during cocktail hour, but said it probably would have been easier to just let him show up for the speech instead of waiting alone in a “room that could fit three people” for an hour.
It’s anyone’s guess how many other reporters have had a similar experience, he said.
“If it happened to me a year ago, and it happened to this guy last week, it seems like this happens every time somebody goes to one of these things, but I can only guess,” he said.
A Biden spokesman said it is common that pool reporters wait in holding rooms during private events.
“It is standard policy for the vice president’s office that a print pooler cover the speaking program at fundraisers. This has been the consistent policy throughout the Administration,” said Elizabeth Alexander, the vice president’s press secretary. “At times, these fundraisers are at private homes and ‘hold rooms’ are provided for pool reporters to wait for the speaking program to commence.”
Is Biden’s closet packed with media skeletons? Reporter one of many to be ‘caged’ by VP
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 11:43 AM 03/28/2011 | Updated: 4:07 PM 03/28/2011
Vice President Joe Biden’s staff may have apologized for stowing a news reporter away in a closet during a fundraiser last weekend, but Saturday’s incident wasn’t the first time the VP kept a member of the media stuck in a tiny room during an event.
In March 2010, Baltimore Sun reporter Justin Fenton was on duty to cover a Biden fundraiser in Maryland, and was forced to wait for an hour in what he jokingly called a “cage” that was guarded by the vice president’s staff.
“Your pool reporter awaited the beginning of the event by sitting in a 5-by-8 foot, Asian-themed room with mirrors on the walls and family photos in small frames,” Fenton wrote in his pool report during a fundraiser hosted by David S. Cordish, a Baltimore-based real estate developer. “Cordish three times brought guests, including VPOTUS, into the room to show off a collection of books about opera singer Rosa Ponselle.”
Fenton highlighted his experience in a post on Twitter Sunday night, after Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers sent pictures to the Drudge Report from a storage closet he was forced to work from during a Biden fundraiser for Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
Powers declined an interview Monday, telling TheDC that he was “trying to climb back into my closet.”
“Story getting lot of play on Drudge, though I had to sit in closed closet during Biden app. at Cordish fundraiser too,” Fenton said via Twitter.
Fenton was allowed to leave the room once to hear Biden’s speech, and was ushered out again the moment he finished.
“The door was closed the whole time, and far from an apology the host came into the room three times and I was expected to stand against the room the whole time as he showed off his collection of books about this opera singer,” Fenton told The Daily Caller.
“It was a mirrored room, and I’m standing there and I can’t hear anything and I don’t know what’s going on outside. And the door pops open and I assume it’s one of his staffers coming in to give me an update and all the sudden the vice president walks in,” Fenton explained. “He stood there, sort of looked at me. He didn’t nod at me or say hi or anything. He hosted, and then he showed him this little book and that was that.”
Fenton added that he understood that it was a private event at a donor’s residence, so it was understandable that the vice president’s staff didn’t want a reporter listening in on conversations during cocktail hour, but said it probably would have been easier to just let him show up for the speech instead of waiting alone in a “room that could fit three people” for an hour.
It’s anyone’s guess how many other reporters have had a similar experience, he said.
“If it happened to me a year ago, and it happened to this guy last week, it seems like this happens every time somebody goes to one of these things, but I can only guess,” he said.
A Biden spokesman said it is common that pool reporters wait in holding rooms during private events.
“It is standard policy for the vice president’s office that a print pooler cover the speaking program at fundraisers. This has been the consistent policy throughout the Administration,” said Elizabeth Alexander, the vice president’s press secretary. “At times, these fundraisers are at private homes and ‘hold rooms’ are provided for pool reporters to wait for the speaking program to commence.”
Republicans need to hold fast on the $61 Billion in cuts.....!
From today's Heritage Foundation.....And I certainly agree that the Republicans need to stand firm on the $61 Billion in cuts they've already proposed...if the Democrats do not want to go along and want to shut down the government, let them make that call and take the flack for it....This is not the same as the shutdown when Newt was Speaker...times have changes and American People want spending under control.
What Would Democrats Cut?
As a third temporary spending bill expires next week, the attention of Capitol Hill will once again be focused on producing a permanent spending bill to keep the federal government open and operating. The threat of a government shutdown would not exist had the Democratically controlled 111th Congress passed a budget for this fiscal year. In fact, not only did they fail to pass a budget, but for the for the first time in the history of the budget-making process, last year’s Congress failed to even vote on a budget. And now, even as the consequences of their failure are just days a way, the Democrats have still failed to agree on a plan that cuts spending.
Thirty-eight days ago, on February 19, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would keep the federal government open for the rest of this fiscal year. Responding to the overwhelming mandate from the American people delivered last November to cut federal spending, that House budget cut $61 billion in spending from 2010 levels. The Democrats then produced a plan that they said “cut spending,” but even The Washington Post Fact Checker found no real cuts.
And they will not even go on record identifying which cuts in the House’s bill they are willing to accept. The Post explains why: “Such a move would force Democrats to go on record defending programs that Republicans had identified as wasteful.”
It is understandable why the Senate is so afraid to offer its own spending plan. When the President offered his own budget for next year, he claimed that it would produce only a $7.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. At the time, we predicted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would produce vastly different numbers, since the President’s proposal included audaciously hopeful economic forecasts and fake spending cuts. Sure enough, on March 18 the CBO scored the President’s budget as causing $9.5 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. That is more debt than the federal government accumulated from 1789 to 2010 combined. Heritage analyst Brian Riedl surveys the damage:
These large deficits will persist because the President’s steep tax hikes cannot keep up with his runaway spending. Relative to the historical averages (which were also pre-recession levels), President Obama would raise taxes by 1.3 percent of GDP yet increase spending by 4 percent of GDP. The main drivers of runaway spending—surging Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs—would not be reformed at all. Accordingly, the annual cost of interest on the national debt would quadruple.
...
Under President Obama’s budget proposal, taxpayers would see large tax increases, bigger government, and slower economic growth. The President who declared that “I didn’t come here to pass our problems on to the next President or the next generation—I’m here to solve them” would, over the next decade, drop an additional $80,000 per household in debt onto the laps of our children and grandchildren.
The White House spent all of 2010 deflecting criticism about its deficit spending by pointing to the President’s debt commission. Then when the commission finally produced a report that included actual spending cuts, the White House couldn’t run from it fast enough. Congressional Democrats have no plan to cut government this year, next year, or any year. Conservatives should hold firm to their $61 billion in cuts and force Democrats to produce their own spending cut plan.
What Would Democrats Cut?
As a third temporary spending bill expires next week, the attention of Capitol Hill will once again be focused on producing a permanent spending bill to keep the federal government open and operating. The threat of a government shutdown would not exist had the Democratically controlled 111th Congress passed a budget for this fiscal year. In fact, not only did they fail to pass a budget, but for the for the first time in the history of the budget-making process, last year’s Congress failed to even vote on a budget. And now, even as the consequences of their failure are just days a way, the Democrats have still failed to agree on a plan that cuts spending.
Thirty-eight days ago, on February 19, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would keep the federal government open for the rest of this fiscal year. Responding to the overwhelming mandate from the American people delivered last November to cut federal spending, that House budget cut $61 billion in spending from 2010 levels. The Democrats then produced a plan that they said “cut spending,” but even The Washington Post Fact Checker found no real cuts.
And they will not even go on record identifying which cuts in the House’s bill they are willing to accept. The Post explains why: “Such a move would force Democrats to go on record defending programs that Republicans had identified as wasteful.”
It is understandable why the Senate is so afraid to offer its own spending plan. When the President offered his own budget for next year, he claimed that it would produce only a $7.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. At the time, we predicted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would produce vastly different numbers, since the President’s proposal included audaciously hopeful economic forecasts and fake spending cuts. Sure enough, on March 18 the CBO scored the President’s budget as causing $9.5 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. That is more debt than the federal government accumulated from 1789 to 2010 combined. Heritage analyst Brian Riedl surveys the damage:
These large deficits will persist because the President’s steep tax hikes cannot keep up with his runaway spending. Relative to the historical averages (which were also pre-recession levels), President Obama would raise taxes by 1.3 percent of GDP yet increase spending by 4 percent of GDP. The main drivers of runaway spending—surging Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs—would not be reformed at all. Accordingly, the annual cost of interest on the national debt would quadruple.
...
Under President Obama’s budget proposal, taxpayers would see large tax increases, bigger government, and slower economic growth. The President who declared that “I didn’t come here to pass our problems on to the next President or the next generation—I’m here to solve them” would, over the next decade, drop an additional $80,000 per household in debt onto the laps of our children and grandchildren.
The White House spent all of 2010 deflecting criticism about its deficit spending by pointing to the President’s debt commission. Then when the commission finally produced a report that included actual spending cuts, the White House couldn’t run from it fast enough. Congressional Democrats have no plan to cut government this year, next year, or any year. Conservatives should hold firm to their $61 billion in cuts and force Democrats to produce their own spending cut plan.
Lack of a Coherent Foreign Policy....
This makes sense to me...
Jim Talent March 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Luck as America’s Foreign Policy
America’s leaders — of both parties — bounce from one impulse to another instead of formulating a coherent foreign policy.
The United States is in another war for the purpose of changing another regime. Those who deny this are kidding themselves. President Obama has repeatedly said that Qaddafi has to go. In addition, military force was used against him only when it appeared the rebellion might be defeated without it; the war is part of an international campaign to force Qaddafi out; and the success or failure of the war will be judged largely by whether Qaddafi manages to stay in power.
Of course, Washington is debating whether this new war is a mistake. That question is impossible to answer with any accuracy because no one has supplied the strategic context that makes the question meaningful.
This is a point I have made before. The last four American presidents have failed to do what only they could have done: define America’s strategic mission in the post–Cold War world by identifying the national interests the United States will seek to advance and the means by which it will advance them.
In the absence of strategic clarity, foreign policy becomes a series of impulses, expressed through often contradictory decisions, in reaction to events that no one managed until they grew into crises that were not anticipated.
The United States military is one tool of American foreign policy. When there is strategic confusion, the military fights in some places but not others, based on distinctions that are at worst irrational and at best unclear.
Some examples include America’s fighting to stop cruelty to civilians in Bosnia and Libya, but not in Sudan or the Ivory Coast. America does not engage in “nation building” — except in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that in Bosnia, and before that in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the hands of terrorists, pose the greatest danger to America. Yet America, now engaged in removing a Libyan regime that ended its WMD program seven years ago, is taking no military action against an Iranian dictatorship that is every bit as brutal as Qaddafi’s, is busy building nuclear weapons, and is the chief sponsor of international terrorism.
None of these decisions was necessarily wrong. But they all were the products of impulse rather than policy, or at best they were based on assumptions not articulated and not formed into a coherent strategy. That makes it difficult to weigh the costs against the benefits, since both can be calculated only with reference to broader objectives, and, over the last four administrations, no one has formulated such objectives.
There is another problem with strategic confusion: When the government doesn’t know which objectives are important, it tends to neglect the capabilities by which all objectives are achieved.
Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has operated at a far higher operational tempo than during the Cold War years. But while the military has been busier than ever, its size and strength have been declining. The Air Force is smaller, and its planes are older, than at any time since the inception of the service in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. All three of the services are 30 to 40 percent smaller than they were during Desert Storm, which is the reason why the Guard and Reserves have been constantly mobilized, and why a number of Army units are on their fifth or sixth deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The situation is so bad that an independent review panel headed by former secretary of defense Bill Perry recently declared that “a train wreck is coming” for America’s military unless it is strengthened and modernized.
Yet the percentage of the federal budget being spent on sustaining the military is at an historic low. The Obama administration has been busy cutting modernization programs for the last two years. Not to be outdone, Congress is passing spending bills that cut the administration’s proposed defense budget even further.
President Obama is not exactly a hawk on military issues. One would think that Congress would be reluctant to cut his defense budget, at least while Americans are dying in Afghanistan. But considerations like that seem to have no impact in Washington these days.
One gets the sense that the leaders in both parties — with a few notable exceptions — have simply given up on foreign policy. They can’t figure out how it all fits together or which parts of it really matter. So they act as if none of it matters. Their “policy” is to wait for the biggest headline or the most pressing demand, and then to react. That reaction usually takes the form of sending American troops to do more and more with less and less, for reasons that even the leaders understand are pretexts.
Unfortunately, the United States does have vital interests abroad, and the threats to those interests are growing. The Libyan campaign, however it ends, shows again that America is sailing with uncertain masters in troubled waters, trusting to luck, and neither anticipating nor prepared for the gathering storm.
— A former member of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Jim Talent is a distinguished fellow specializing in defense studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Jim Talent March 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Luck as America’s Foreign Policy
America’s leaders — of both parties — bounce from one impulse to another instead of formulating a coherent foreign policy.
The United States is in another war for the purpose of changing another regime. Those who deny this are kidding themselves. President Obama has repeatedly said that Qaddafi has to go. In addition, military force was used against him only when it appeared the rebellion might be defeated without it; the war is part of an international campaign to force Qaddafi out; and the success or failure of the war will be judged largely by whether Qaddafi manages to stay in power.
Of course, Washington is debating whether this new war is a mistake. That question is impossible to answer with any accuracy because no one has supplied the strategic context that makes the question meaningful.
This is a point I have made before. The last four American presidents have failed to do what only they could have done: define America’s strategic mission in the post–Cold War world by identifying the national interests the United States will seek to advance and the means by which it will advance them.
In the absence of strategic clarity, foreign policy becomes a series of impulses, expressed through often contradictory decisions, in reaction to events that no one managed until they grew into crises that were not anticipated.
The United States military is one tool of American foreign policy. When there is strategic confusion, the military fights in some places but not others, based on distinctions that are at worst irrational and at best unclear.
Some examples include America’s fighting to stop cruelty to civilians in Bosnia and Libya, but not in Sudan or the Ivory Coast. America does not engage in “nation building” — except in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that in Bosnia, and before that in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the hands of terrorists, pose the greatest danger to America. Yet America, now engaged in removing a Libyan regime that ended its WMD program seven years ago, is taking no military action against an Iranian dictatorship that is every bit as brutal as Qaddafi’s, is busy building nuclear weapons, and is the chief sponsor of international terrorism.
None of these decisions was necessarily wrong. But they all were the products of impulse rather than policy, or at best they were based on assumptions not articulated and not formed into a coherent strategy. That makes it difficult to weigh the costs against the benefits, since both can be calculated only with reference to broader objectives, and, over the last four administrations, no one has formulated such objectives.
There is another problem with strategic confusion: When the government doesn’t know which objectives are important, it tends to neglect the capabilities by which all objectives are achieved.
Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has operated at a far higher operational tempo than during the Cold War years. But while the military has been busier than ever, its size and strength have been declining. The Air Force is smaller, and its planes are older, than at any time since the inception of the service in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. All three of the services are 30 to 40 percent smaller than they were during Desert Storm, which is the reason why the Guard and Reserves have been constantly mobilized, and why a number of Army units are on their fifth or sixth deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The situation is so bad that an independent review panel headed by former secretary of defense Bill Perry recently declared that “a train wreck is coming” for America’s military unless it is strengthened and modernized.
Yet the percentage of the federal budget being spent on sustaining the military is at an historic low. The Obama administration has been busy cutting modernization programs for the last two years. Not to be outdone, Congress is passing spending bills that cut the administration’s proposed defense budget even further.
President Obama is not exactly a hawk on military issues. One would think that Congress would be reluctant to cut his defense budget, at least while Americans are dying in Afghanistan. But considerations like that seem to have no impact in Washington these days.
One gets the sense that the leaders in both parties — with a few notable exceptions — have simply given up on foreign policy. They can’t figure out how it all fits together or which parts of it really matter. So they act as if none of it matters. Their “policy” is to wait for the biggest headline or the most pressing demand, and then to react. That reaction usually takes the form of sending American troops to do more and more with less and less, for reasons that even the leaders understand are pretexts.
Unfortunately, the United States does have vital interests abroad, and the threats to those interests are growing. The Libyan campaign, however it ends, shows again that America is sailing with uncertain masters in troubled waters, trusting to luck, and neither anticipating nor prepared for the gathering storm.
— A former member of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Jim Talent is a distinguished fellow specializing in defense studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Obamacare at a Year....uglier by the day!
Obamacare is getting uglier by the day....costs for Americans are going UP not down and that trend will not change...the promises made by Obama are being broken by the day....and we simply cannot afford the entitlement...not to mention that the bill is unconstitutional.....we need to repeal it NOW and make certain that it is totally defunded.....
Obama Administration LOCKS a reporter in a closet so he can't talk with fundraiser guests....after he was INVITED to the event!
This is what we get with Obama, Biden and this Administration....if they don't like what they think you are going to ask, say for write they just lock you in a closet ...that's freedom of speech...that's free press...that's why most of the media in American today is "state-run"...that's why most Americans listen to Fox News....Transparency and Openess????? Never with this Administration....remember that when you watch Obama on TV tonight....he will NOT tell you the truth!
If this wasn't the truth, you would think you were watching an episode of the Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello...
Er, we made a mistake... Vice President's aide apologises to journalist locked in a closet for hours during fundraiser
By Simon Neville Last updated at 3:04 AM on 28th March 2011
An aide to Vice President Joe Biden has apologised to a reporter who was locked in a closet for hours after he was invited to cover a Florida political fundraiser because they did not want him talking with the guests.
Spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said the decision to hold local reporter Scott Powers there was a 'mistake'.
And she claimed an inexperienced staffer had put Powers in the closet instead of a 'hotel room' as was their normal practice.
As the unaware $500-a-head invitees dined on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese, grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps, last week, the veteran reporter was locked away.
(1st Amendment: Freedom of the press was stretched when VP Joe Biden's staff refused to let reporter Scott Powers, right, talk with guests at a fundraiser with Sen Bill Nelson)
The Orlando Sentinel reporter was ushered into the closet inside wealthy property developer Alan Ginsburg’s Winter Park mansion, after being told that Joe Biden and Senator Bill Nelson had not yet arrived.
They were due to speak to the audience to raise money for the 2012 elections.
He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches.
The event was being held for Democrat senator Bill Nelson. Powers emailed from inside the closet: 'sounds like a nice party'
Powers told The Drudge Report: ‘When I'd stick my head out, they'd say, “Not yet. We'll let you know when you can come out.”’
After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event.
When Ginsburg – who has supported both Democrat and Republican candidates in the past – learnt of the treatment that took place in his house, he called the reporter.
Powers said: ‘[Ginsburg] said he had no idea they'd put me in a closet and was very sorry.
‘He said he was just following their lead and was extremely embarrassed by the whole thing.’
Today Ms Alexander followed suit. She said Power has accepted her 'unequivocal apology' made shortly after the fundraiser.
'This was the unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the vice president's office has made sure it will never happen again,' she said.
She said pool reporters are usually given 'hotel rooms' when the Vice President speaks at private homes.
She explained that the closet was chosen because of its 'close proximity' to the room where Mr Biden was speaking, and that it had a table and chair where the reporter could work, as well as open space.
But she clarified: 'A hotel room, however, should not be a storage room'.
Some guests were shocked by the Vice President’s staff.
One emailed the paper saying: ‘I was in attendance at the Fundraiser and enjoyed a nice lunch.
‘If I had known there was a reporter stuffed in the closet, I would have been compelled to stand up and demand answers.
‘I would also like to know if this is actually legal to treat people like caged animals. I’m disgusted by these actions.’
Florida state law says kidnapping entails ‘forcibly, secretly or by threat confining, abducting or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority.’
Alan Ginsburg's home was awash with 150 guests - non of whom seemed to know Scott Power was being held guard in the closet
Powers said of his treatment: ‘It was frustrating and annoying that I was not given a chance to do my job fully and properly.
‘This was an extreme, and extremely inappropriate way of handling the press… it was essentially a rude and uncomfortable way to treat a reporter.’
He attempted to play down his treatment calling it ‘hardly unusual or shocking’ and confirmed that he received an apology from Ginsburg.
But he said the Vice President’s staff emailed him an apology which ‘I found far less satisfying than Ginsburg’s.’
The incident is especially embarrassing for the administration because it comes at a time when the White House has been condemning the treatment of journalists trying to report in Libya.
Just ten days ago, President Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: ‘journalists should be protected and allowed to do their work.’
The Vice President’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
If this wasn't the truth, you would think you were watching an episode of the Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello...
Er, we made a mistake... Vice President's aide apologises to journalist locked in a closet for hours during fundraiser
By Simon Neville Last updated at 3:04 AM on 28th March 2011
An aide to Vice President Joe Biden has apologised to a reporter who was locked in a closet for hours after he was invited to cover a Florida political fundraiser because they did not want him talking with the guests.
Spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said the decision to hold local reporter Scott Powers there was a 'mistake'.
And she claimed an inexperienced staffer had put Powers in the closet instead of a 'hotel room' as was their normal practice.
As the unaware $500-a-head invitees dined on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese, grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps, last week, the veteran reporter was locked away.
(1st Amendment: Freedom of the press was stretched when VP Joe Biden's staff refused to let reporter Scott Powers, right, talk with guests at a fundraiser with Sen Bill Nelson)
The Orlando Sentinel reporter was ushered into the closet inside wealthy property developer Alan Ginsburg’s Winter Park mansion, after being told that Joe Biden and Senator Bill Nelson had not yet arrived.
They were due to speak to the audience to raise money for the 2012 elections.
He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches.
The event was being held for Democrat senator Bill Nelson. Powers emailed from inside the closet: 'sounds like a nice party'
Powers told The Drudge Report: ‘When I'd stick my head out, they'd say, “Not yet. We'll let you know when you can come out.”’
After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event.
When Ginsburg – who has supported both Democrat and Republican candidates in the past – learnt of the treatment that took place in his house, he called the reporter.
Powers said: ‘[Ginsburg] said he had no idea they'd put me in a closet and was very sorry.
‘He said he was just following their lead and was extremely embarrassed by the whole thing.’
Today Ms Alexander followed suit. She said Power has accepted her 'unequivocal apology' made shortly after the fundraiser.
'This was the unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the vice president's office has made sure it will never happen again,' she said.
She said pool reporters are usually given 'hotel rooms' when the Vice President speaks at private homes.
She explained that the closet was chosen because of its 'close proximity' to the room where Mr Biden was speaking, and that it had a table and chair where the reporter could work, as well as open space.
But she clarified: 'A hotel room, however, should not be a storage room'.
Some guests were shocked by the Vice President’s staff.
One emailed the paper saying: ‘I was in attendance at the Fundraiser and enjoyed a nice lunch.
‘If I had known there was a reporter stuffed in the closet, I would have been compelled to stand up and demand answers.
‘I would also like to know if this is actually legal to treat people like caged animals. I’m disgusted by these actions.’
Florida state law says kidnapping entails ‘forcibly, secretly or by threat confining, abducting or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority.’
Alan Ginsburg's home was awash with 150 guests - non of whom seemed to know Scott Power was being held guard in the closet
Powers said of his treatment: ‘It was frustrating and annoying that I was not given a chance to do my job fully and properly.
‘This was an extreme, and extremely inappropriate way of handling the press… it was essentially a rude and uncomfortable way to treat a reporter.’
He attempted to play down his treatment calling it ‘hardly unusual or shocking’ and confirmed that he received an apology from Ginsburg.
But he said the Vice President’s staff emailed him an apology which ‘I found far less satisfying than Ginsburg’s.’
The incident is especially embarrassing for the administration because it comes at a time when the White House has been condemning the treatment of journalists trying to report in Libya.
Just ten days ago, President Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: ‘journalists should be protected and allowed to do their work.’
The Vice President’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Obama breaks but ONE MORE campaign promise...
ANOTHER campaign promise Obama made and didn't keep....oh he'll dance around with words tonight to try to spin his decision to go to war in Libya without informing the American People OR Congress...but he still didn't do what he said he was going to do...and after all his complaining about George W. and Iraq...he entered Libya and put American Men and Women's lives in danger with much less notification...and obviously much less support from the American People....He needs to GO in 2012!
The Obamacare cost arguement being spun by Democrats, liberals and progressives just doesn't make sense!
The liberal/progressive arguement just doesn't make sense....just applying common sense the American People know that they are being lied to by the administration and Obama....and as far as Totenberg goes...there's a reason to defund NPR!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Obama controlled Media....
Once again this shows that Obama and his Administration continues to try to manipulate the state-run media to just play into their hype...their spin...this is NOT a transparent administration....this is NOT an administration that wants to fully disclose what's going on.....That's why EVERYONE watches FOX!
Is the White House playing favorites again with media outlets?
There has been a back-and-forth between Fox News and the White House ever since President Barack Obama took his oath in 2009. And the latest episode appears to have occurred on Sunday after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to discuss Libya, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” but not “Fox News Sunday.”
That drew a response from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, following his interview with potential 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.
“Of course we wanted to get the White House view on Libya,” Wallace said. “However, they chose to offer Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates to ABC, CBS and NBC, but not to Fox. Despite the fact that we routinely have more viewers than two of those Sunday shows, the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and Fox News why they have sent U.S. servicemen and women into combat. We thought you’d like to know.”
Is the White House playing favorites again with media outlets?
There has been a back-and-forth between Fox News and the White House ever since President Barack Obama took his oath in 2009. And the latest episode appears to have occurred on Sunday after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to discuss Libya, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” but not “Fox News Sunday.”
That drew a response from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, following his interview with potential 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.
“Of course we wanted to get the White House view on Libya,” Wallace said. “However, they chose to offer Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates to ABC, CBS and NBC, but not to Fox. Despite the fact that we routinely have more viewers than two of those Sunday shows, the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and Fox News why they have sent U.S. servicemen and women into combat. We thought you’d like to know.”
Funny, But True
This is a joke that was sent to me....unfortunately most of the American People would agree that this is more true than funny.......
You know the honeymoon is over when the comedians start.
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree . . . and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
--Jay Leno
America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
--Jay Leno
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
--Conan O'Brien
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
--Jay Leno
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers, and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.
--David Letterman
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America !
--Jimmy Fallon
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.
--Jimmy Kimmel
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.
--David Letterman
You know the honeymoon is over when the comedians start.
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree . . . and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
--Jay Leno
America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
--Jay Leno
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
--Conan O'Brien
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
--Jay Leno
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers, and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.
--David Letterman
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America !
--Jimmy Fallon
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.
--Jimmy Kimmel
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.
--David Letterman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)