So let me get this straight. The circuit that is seen by most conservatives as being the most liberal in the US judicial system today ruled that a sentence against a convicted terrorist was too lenient AND the guy who conservatives claimed wouldn’t talk because he was able to lawyer up (instead of getting water-boarded) actually talked.
The ultra liberal socialist left wing marxist 9th circuit court of appeals (if you believed Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits) rejected the sentence of Ahmed Ressam today.
Ressam, a member of Al Qaeda, has been held in a US “supermax” prison since his conviction. So much for the conservative idea that foreign terrorists cannot be put on trial and put in prison on U.S. soil. Seems to have worked well in this case (and others).
Tonight America saw a leader, someone who didn’t just run to what his party wants in the face of political defeats. We saw a president who doubled down on the bipartisanship he called for when he ran for President.
In the start of the debate (and towards the middle) he did make a point of reminding everyone that the horrible economy we are currently facing was inherited by Obama and not created by him and that any short term deficits created by the recovery act was needed to make sure to plug the hole in this economy.
The mention of the recovery act reminded me of my drive to MD recently. I drove through MS and AL, conservative states with GOP governors that publicly opposed the stimulus bill. Of course this did not stop them from accepting funds to improve the infrastructure (like highways) and erecting signs taking credit for spending the “recovery money”.
Obama also called out the GOP members who scoffed at the idea that the spending freeze wouldn’t take place until next year, reminding them how their jobs work and the spending bill that they pass will take effect in 2011.
But criticizing the GOP was not the focus of the address. Obama focused on truly calling for bipartisan solutions on how to fix the problems we face.
On healthare, he stood firm on the need to pass reform, but called on others to propose alternatives if they had them.
On energy, not only did he push for his clean energy bill, but he welcomed drilling offshore for oil and gas, manufacturing safer nuclear power plants, and developing clean coal technology.
Of course, the GOP stood for all the things they want in energy legislation, but sat down for what they didn’t want. I guarantee you that if Obama puts up a clean energy bill that includes drilling for oil and gas, developing clean coal, and building safer nuclear power plants, that the GOP will STILL vote against it. Why? Because they just do not want to pass anything that Obama can claim a political victory on… even if he comes halfway and gives them what they want when it comes to policy.
Obama could pass healthcare legislation that includes tort reform and all the other things they want and the GOP would still vote against it.
So while Obama is making the call for bipartisanship, I am not sure there is any GOP Senator with the integrity to answer that call and do what is right for America. And if they do not answer that call, perhaps it is time to drop the carrot and use the stick.
Finally, Obama called for the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” because as he said earlier, what is right isn’t always what is popular. Why people who want to risk their lives to defend our country should be forbidden to do so because of who they have relationships with is beyond me. Of course, Obama has been slow on pushing equal rights for our GLBT citizens so I will believe this call for increased equality when I see action on it.
The GOP response was, of course, full of crap. Health insurance can already be sold across state lines. What the GOP proposes is to allow insurance companies to circumvent state laws by basing themselves in a home state with easy regulations and having the customers who purchase those policies in other states fall under the jurisdiction of the state the insurance company is based in. That just makes no sense.
What I didn’t hear from the GOP is proposals that show they will come halfway.
And it is obvious the Governor of VA has not read his constitution in a while. The fifth amendment applies to all people, whatever the crime, and not just citizens. If we start picking and choosing who gets due process, the terrorists win.
A final thing to point out is that we had a minor Joe Wilson moment tonight. It was not as loud or disruptive as Senator Wilson was last year but I do not recall seeing what I saw tonight in past addresses.
When criticizing the ruling by the Supreme Court giving corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds supporting or opposing any political candidate, Activist Alito visibly shook his head and said that it was “not true”. I do not recall ever seeing any member of the SCOTUS do anything but sit there. They never stand, they never clap, and they never respond to anything that is said. They just sit there like 9 little statues. That is, until tonight. I guess his ruling wasn’t activist enough and he needed the American public to see his activism.
A bill passed the Senate that would provide additional spending at home for another year’s worth of funding of our troops in the middle east. Bush said:
Our troops deserve better than having essential war time resources held hostage to billions in unrelated spending
No. Our troops deserve better than having an idiot for a President who pretends to “support the troops” and instead supports those who profit from this war. A real supporter of our troops would make sure that the veterans of his failed wartime policies (and other veterans as well) would be taken care of. What was in this awful bill that Bush promised to veto?
Some 25 Republicans abandoned Bush to endorse money for grants to local police departments, repairing roads damaged by natural disasters and boosting health research. Just 22 stood with him.
Domestic programs included money for Louisiana and Mississippi for projects including levees and coastal restoration.
Oh no! Not money for police officers! Not funding for coastal restoration! You mean Bush, and the 25 Republicans who support him on this issue, are going to make our troops suffer because Congress dares to fund police officers and coastal restoration projects? The horror!
Here is a question to those people who chose Bush again in 2004. What happened to Republicans being the party that would be more likely to protect us from terrorism? It seems to me that by distracting us from the actual problem, President Bush has done NOTHING to make us any more safer from “turrists”. Are you happy with your choice now?
It is abundantly clear that the Republican middle east policy has failed. Vote for another one in the name of security and you are an idiot. Period.
The threat of terrorist attacks has been used by this administration to justify its actions and to win their 2004 election with fear. Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, is it any surprise that a new terrorist threat has been revealed?
[Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command] did, however, repeat his assertion — which he first made in July — that he believes there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States.
President Bush, in a speech Thursday, also said the United States remained under threat from terrorists.
Bush will continue to discuss the terrorist threats that face our country to try and scare us. McCain will use the same scare tactics to try and convince people to vote for him. However, while they try and scare us, they reveal the fact that the threat still exists despite their actions. So what I want to know is this. When will the American public stop thinking “oh no, the terrorists are going to get us if we elect a Democrat” and start thinking “wow, this Republican Administration is incapable of eliminating the terrorist threat and perhaps we need to elect a Democrat to try something different”.
Albert Einstein stated that to repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity. Believing that Republicans can eliminate the terrorist threat after 7 years of failure is also insanity.
Previously I discussed that Democrats need better wordsmiths. The debate tonight continues that concept. Hillary did have one good line where she stated that it took one Clinton to fix the mess one Bush made, maybe it will take another Clinton to fix the mess of this Bush.
However, she still needs some wordsmiths. Hillary was asked if she made a mistake or was naive when she voted to authorize force in Iraq.
She gave her answer which went all over the place. Her answer should have been:
“No. It was not a mistake. I made a decision based on what was presented to me as facts. The President lied. Had the President not misled us, I would have voted differently. But that was not my mistake, it was his lie. He should take all the blame. The question we should ask now is why are there still Republicans who still support his failed policies.”
It is really that simple. It is just like how John Kerry should have stopped saying “I voted for the war before I voted against it” and should have said “I voted to give the President power to take appropriate action. The action he took was not appropriate”.
I also had an issue with one of Obama’s answers. In the discussion of the decision to give the President power to take action. Hillary stated that we have used the threat of force to cause other people to take action before. Obama criticized the vote to authorize force because he said that she had to know that the President could take military action with the authority granted.
Now, hindsight is 20/20 and all reasonable people wish that we had not given the President the power to take action. However, how effective would legislation been that was geared to make Saddam take action if it lacked the teeth to back up the demands? It is like the mall security guard running after you saying “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”.
Basically, Congress should be able to authorize the President to use the threat of force and trust that the President will use that power responsibly. Because Bush failed to use his power responsibly does not mean that we should be blaming those who he misled.
Before the SOTU, Tim Russert was discussing the approval rating of the President (less than 40%). He then mentioned that the Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%. Of course, he ignores the reason why Congress has an approval rating that is so low. This reason is because the Democrats won the 2006 elections with a mandate to end the war and turn this country around. Republicans are obstructing that mandate. This is why the approval rating is so low.
Bush wants us to make the tax cuts permanent. Of course he does! He has no more control after this year and he feels that his cuts are actually a good idea. He is wrong. Does that mean that all tax cuts are wrong? No. Do I think that just because someone is rich that they never should get a tax break? No. I do believe that tax cuts must be responsible and that we should not be increasing spending while cutting taxes. And for those who would bring up the laffer curve, well, you have to prove you are on the correct side of the curve before you know that decreasing taxes will increase revenue. The argument that many blind followers of the party bring up is that decreasing taxes ALWAYS decreases revenue. This is obviously flawed.
Bush discussed the idea of free trade, and that we can help domestic workers by opening up to foreign markets. That sounds nice and good but in reality it doesn’t work. When you sign free trade agreements with countries whose labor laws are less restrictive than ours, it places our workers at a competitive disadvantage. If corporations in other countries can develop cheaper goods and sell them here, our workers suffer. If corporations in our country can find cheaper labor overseas, our workers suffer. The blind faith that conservatives have in free trade is flawed and dangerous. They do so at their own peril.
Bush wants to empower judges who say that the Constitution means what it says. He then states that the judges deserve an “up or down vote”. I challenge the President, or any other conservative who likes to use the phrase ”up or down vote” to show me where the Constitution requires an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
Towards the end, Bush continued to say all that terrorists are doing around the world. I would comment on that as well. However, why should we believe anything this President has to say on terrorism after 7 years of lies and deceit?
Yes I support the troops, that’s why I want them home. Yes I support going after terrorists, kill them before they kill us. But like the little boy who called wolf, Bush can no longer be trusted.
Update #1: As I watch this on my DVR (after much pausing) I heard Bush talking about honoring those who serve our country. How can he say this with a straight face after saying that a pay raise for them is unnecessary?
And for Bush to talk about Liberty? That is just laughable.
The Center for Public Integrity came out with its “War Card“, a report on how many times Bush and his administration gave false statements to the public. Their count is at least 935!
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
The center points out key false statements made by officials and point out why they are wrong. I am disappointed in our administration, the least they could have done is gotten an even 1000. But you know our President, always underachieving.
I may post more on this later. However, the site needs to be forwarded to as many people as possible so I thought it best to provide the link now.
When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.
By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.
Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:
“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”
Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:
“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.
By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.
