Bush Chief Of Staff To Obama...Put On Your Jacket
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-09
In Reply to:
On Wednesday night former Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card told "Inside Edition" that he's not pleased with President Obama's lax Oval Office appearance. (Obama has instituted an even more relaxed weekend dress code.) According to the Inside Edition website:
"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."
Card is the first member of the Bush administration to bash Obama, and he's going after him for forgoing a coat and tie.
"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."
Card continued, "I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history."
MSNBC dissected the dress code controversy on Thursday morning, and pointed to a similar fashion "faux pas" by President Clinton while in office:
Video
Unfortunately for Card, the New York Times dredged up this picture:
It seems the former Chief of Staff is as wrong as he is bitter.
Link
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
When he was WH Chief of Staff...
he said he knew nothing about ML servicing old Billy boy under the desk....right under his nose. Just think how he'll run the CIA! He's either a fool or a look the other way kinda guy, take your pick!
Chief of Staff or Enforcer?...
Here are a few thing I've found just after a short search about Mr. Emanuel:
Mr. Emanuel, who received training in ballet as a boy, has shown no lightness of step in his political career: would-be enemies are advised to heed the story of a pollster who wronged him and promptly received a large, decomposing fish in the mail.
The intense, eventually successful campaign took a serious toll on him. Colleagues reported that amid a discussion over a celebratory dinner about which political figures had earned the new president's enmity, Mr. Emanuel became so enraged that he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began reciting a list of names, plunging the knife into the table and shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each one.
Reflecting on his own foul-mouthed, attack-dog style, Mr. Emanuel has said: "I wake up some mornings hating me too." Commentators have suggested that Mr. Obama, who ran a lofty campaign based on national unity and bipartisanship, has recognized the need to employ a tough enforcer to push through his policies.
Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff disturbs you how?
could you please expand on your concept of the Chicago political machine? I must have missed those posts in the past.
The President's Chief of Staff is basically an administrative coordinator who oversees the white house staff. He manages the president's schedule, Under his supervision are his own deputy, White House Counsel and the White House Press Secretary. Sounds like an executive butler to me. He has experience as a political staffer and advisor, a successful campaign director and fundraiser on both the state and national levels. Senior advisor to Bill Clinton on political affairs, policy and strategy. Returned to the House of representatives from the 5th district in Illinois 4 times. He must be doing something right.
Though he had expressed his interest in staying in the House and possibly aspiring to Speaker of the House, he has now decided to leave the legislative branch and become part of the executive branch. He seems to be imminently qualified for the job and does not have any direct legislative powers. Please tell us what it is you find so foreboding about the appointment of this White House butler guy.
Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. (sm)
The buck stops there (although KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, in which Cheney has a very large interest).
As has been mentioned on this thread already, our soldiers were poisoned with Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.
It's bad enough having to fight one enemy, but when there are TWO enemies and one of them is your own government, I feel such sorrow for these soldiers. Bush's smirking lack of respect for these soldiers on occasions has been infuriating. He gave a presidential coin to a grieving mother, swaggered, giggled and told her to not "go and sell it on eBay." You can Google it. It happened.
The buck starts and stops with Bush.
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
Abramoff Attended staff-level meetings at Bush White House
White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2006
(AP) The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had a few staff-level meetings at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that, he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon.
McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with three other Democratic senators, wrote Bush a letter Tuesday asking for an accounting of Abramoff's personal contacts with Bush administration officials and acts that may have been undertaken at his request. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale, they wrote.
McClellan has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two _ in 2001 and 2002.
McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.
Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title pioneer. The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions _ which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented _ and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.
Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 IM
In W.H., Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 im
By: Ben Smith
January 17, 2009 09:16 PM EST
Barack Obama may get to keep his Blackberry, but David Axelrod is losing his IM.
The lawyers broke the bad news to Obama aides at a briefing Friday morning convened by incoming Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts: Not only are they leaving the modern world to enter a White House where some of the clunky desktop computers still run Windows 2000 but—worst of all—they'll be forced to surrender a form of communication staffers have relied on for the last two years to communicate with each other, outside allies, and the press.
From Axelrod, the chief campaign strategist, down to junior staffers in the press office, Obama's campaign relied heavily on software many of them began using in high school—AOL Instant Message and Google Chat. Instant messaging, though little mentioned, is—perhaps as much as email—deeply woven into contemporary politics and media, whose fabric is the constant, quick, gossipy transmission of spin and information. But a calculus that's perhaps one part security, one part law, and two parts politics, has long barred instant messaging from the White House.
"They just told us flat out we couldn't IM in the White House," groused one senior staffer Friday.
"It sucks. It's really going to slow us down," complained another, saying that lawyers had warned that, along with Instant Messaging, White House software will restrict users to a range of sites roughly "like your average grade school."
The clunky technology is standard issue for government offices, but the bar on instant messaging is particular to the White House. Legal and security experts say it is dictated by the fear of embarrassment if IMs were to be disclosed. The Presidential Records Act requires White House documents to become public five years after a president leaves office, and most lawyers think it would apply to any instant messages discussing government business.
"People have to be conscious that when you put something on paper you think it through," said former Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. With IM, he said, "you think you're talking but you're really writing."
The Bush Administration has been rebuked by federal courts for the apparent destruction of emails sent by political aides on non-governmental accounts, and Obama's aides are intensely aware that any instant messages written must be preserved, and will become part of the permanent record, which may not be desirable.
"They're going to realize, once you go inside the bubble, it becomes much more difficult to maintain contact with the outside world," said Reginald Brown, a former associate White House counsel for President Bush. "IMng encourages a kind of casualness in conversation that will be the bane of the lawyers down the line. The reality is that if you want to engage in the equivalent of IMing, you have to pick up the phone."
Brown noted that, along with entering the permanent record after the presidency, the IMs could become public sooner in response to Congressional subpoenas or lawsuits.
"These lawyers - [incoming White House Counsel] Greg Craig in particular—come out of a law firm environment and knows how onerous e-discovery has been for clients," he said.
Instant messaging—like email—also brings security concerns, though Beryl Howell, an lawyer who specializes in cyber-security, said it would be "feasible" to encrypt IM and block potential avenues for viruses.
Others called the policy a reasonable, and perhaps even helpful, way to avoid public embarrassment—and even to inspire more sober thinking.
Hillary Clinton's former chief strategist, Howard Wolfson - who exchanged pleasantries with Axelrod on IM even in the heat of the primaries - emailed that the ban is "probably a blessing. Less distractions."
The instant message ban is just part of a maze Obama's lawyers are preparing to enter, as the 1978 record act faces up to contemporary technology. Lawyers believe, for instance, that any government-related content Obama's aides put on social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter will be covered by the act and must be preserved.
And the difficulty of Obama having email isn't just that he will have to be careful about what he writes; any message, however embarrassing, that
is written to him must be preserved.
Many veterans of the Bush White House—who have been accused of channeling compromising political conversations to outside email accounts, which they deny—say they've found it intensely frustrating.
"Did you all think the White House just didn't know that Facebook at Twitter existed?" asked Almacy, blaming the lawyers for the archaic feel of White House web operations.
A current Bush aide said the law didn't contemplate the shift of hallway conversations to instant message and email.
"Do you really want every one of those hallway conversations preserved for the official record?"
But the controversy over the Bush emails, and Obama's promise of transparency, make it unlikely that the new president and Congress will pass legislation lowering the veil of secrecy over new technologies. So for now, Obamas aides will have to cope with telephones and email alone, a shift that will afflict Axelrod—whose habit of using punctuation and complete sentences in his IMs amuses young staffers—as much as any.
Asked by email about the impending technological downgrade, he emailed: "I will reply to this by registered mail."
"I don't' think it was necessarily a national security issue—I think it had mostly to do with the records act," said David Almacy, the former Bush White House Internet Director, who noted that to keep IM, a White House would probably have to "work with an external contractor to preserve all that communication in real time."
Obama's lawyers told staff Friday they'd be reviewing current White House information security policy, and the IM ban drew mixed reviews from outside experts, with some saying that could cast the staff into some of the same isolation that Obama, by insisting on keeping his Blackberry, is seeking to avoid.
"Does there really need to be a trade off here? The net effect is that the president and all of his top staff are going to be put into a bubble," said Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archvie. "There should be ways for the President's staff to take advantage of the latest IM technology—otherwise they're living in the hothouse, and strange plants grow in hothouses."
Hard to believe the White House is still using Windows 2000!
Senate scandal snares Obama Chief Aide...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5337807.ece
who said it is staff?
I saw that one week was for 7th and 8th graders that were hosted for a black history month affair, then one night was congressman, etc. (I think they were they ones that did the conga line; I don't think anywhere I have read did it say that it was for staffers.
On HC and other staff appointees...
I will reserve comment momentarily on the "increasing number of former Clinton staff," to see if you have further comment on my OP. To some extent, I share your concern about HC, but my feelings about her are pretty mixed. Her behavior during the primary was predictably brutal and I am sure she still has her own political aspirations for the future. SOS position would be a definite feather in her cap toward that end IF she meets the expectations as laid out during Obama's campaign in terms of troop withdrawal from Iraq, a more surgical focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan front, A 2-state solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict and more open diplomacy overall.
Should she "go rogue" on Obama in this regard, she would be doing herself more harm than good. The SOS serves at the behest of the president and what the president giveth, the president can taketh away. Case in point, Colin Powell. In terms of Obama's strategy, I truly believe Obama the fox is in charge of that decision. As a senator. HC has the potential to affect policy on a much BROADER range than she does has SOS. In any case, there seems to be a log-jam of sorts over the vetting of HC in terms of conflict of interests with Bill's financial dealings, so this is still in the wait and see mode.
Again, will reserve comment on the staff picks to see what you have to say after reading the OP. On the economy, I want a little bit of both. I think it would be wise for Obama to select people who are innovative and open to new approaches and even sweeping systemic reforms. I agree with your observations about the current cronies. So far, there is not much to say about this since the only economy-related selection so far has been Orszag, who did serve on the Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton during years that were not exactly disastrous in that respect. In fact, a balance budget was achieved then and in that respect, he probably tried to err on the safe side with this pick.
I think you may be selling Obama a bit short on the cabinet/administration relationship. It is not a foregone conclusion that the cabinet runs the leader. I believe Obama's style will be more or less the "iron fist in the velvet glove." That too remains to be seen. You may want to consider that even former CLINTON people may be interested in propelling themselves into the future world and shaking these types of perceptions. I also do believe there is plenty of room for those fresh faces that we both would like to see step forward, but it is not difficult for me to understand his focus on experience and name recognition in these top key posts. HC has some of the former and much of the latter. If she is not as experienced as some of the other potential picks, it could just be that she would be less independent in this capacity and, by necessity, would have to look to her boss for guidance.
You would prefer he not have staff on day 1? Or have a plan of action? sm
He has done nothing that previous Presidents-elect have not done in the days between election and inauguration.
Isn't he supposed to be the commander in chief
of the troops? And his love affair with war is the entire reason they need to be recruited in the first place.
Too bad you think it's just fine and dandy to recruit handicapped people. Speaks volume about the kind of person you. The despicable kind that doesn't deserve any further response from me.
Now hurry along and don't forget to kiss King George's ring as you kneel at his feet, worshipping a false god. What a fool.
But a VP should also be ready to be commander-in-chief should something...sm
happen to the President so what does this say about what McCain has been saying about his opponent's lack of experience? His VP pick is the same age?!?!
I think his pick will hurt him more than help him and I have absolutely nothing against her at all...
If you are a US citizen, he is YOUR president - sorry about that chief - nm
X
..and who is COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE NAVY SEALS??
.
..and who is COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE NAVY SEALS??
That's right - the Navy Seals can't go in on their own without orders so she is right on....
THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove
Dirty politics equals dirty water. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
From the Los Angeles Times
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove
The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers
June 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.
The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.
In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.
Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.
Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.
Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.
Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.
In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.
I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.
Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.
White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.
The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.
Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.
The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.
For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.
Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.
White House and administration officials disagreed.
At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.
Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.
When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.
The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.
A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.
That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.
In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.
A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.
We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.
Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.
In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.
His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.
The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.
Quote from Dr. Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist
in Bush's first term:
Evil rulers use divide-and-conquer strategies against their subjects. In Iraq, the occupiers blow up mosques and markets, and murder thousands of bystanders, in a lame attempt to provoke a Sunni-Shia civil war. But they’re not fooling anybody. The Iraqis all know who’s really doing these bombings, just as 90% of the Arab and Muslim world knows that 9/11 was an inside job. Here in Ersatz America, our criminal rulers are trying to divide us by whipping up emotional hysteria: abortion, immigration, gay marriage, liberal versus conservative, religious versus secular, Christian and Jewish versus Muslim—anything to distract us and keep us from seeing what they’re doing to all of us.
We are also trying to force democracy on a country that does not want it.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.
The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).
Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.
Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.
He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.
We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.
The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent. |
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html |
I was no Bush fan, but I see Obama as much
nm
Because Obama is not as friendly with Bush
serving caviar for anyone who attends that meeting. I'm sorry but I'm tired of the rich getting richer. I think Obama is right; let's stay on task which is the debate.
Biden could easily step in as President, why do you think he ran intially? Palin, hmmm, dunno, she seems so "not ready" even though she thinks her name should come first; hmmm, slip up, I doubt it. She probably thinks in her mind she's going to be the next president, but she's sadly mistaken. She needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs, yup, with her family issues, they need her right now. It sounds like Alaska really loves her too and she should stay there in Alaska and take care of her business there in between tanning sessions.
Bush/McCain/Obama
I already hid my money. Might be if Obama is elected I can bring it out of hiding. Keep it hid if McCain is elected...........more of G.W. Bush.
thank Obama? He isn't the President.Thank Mr. Bush. NM
x
Bush is President. Obama is not (yet).
Very disrepectful to treat him like this. Like I say come 01/20/09 Obama can have at the cameras all he wants 24 hours a day 7 days a week. But to come out and act as though he is already president is very disrespectful.
Yep! That's it! Blame what Bush has done on Obama...
...again! LOL!
How pitiful. 
No, but Bush would not work to end it, Obama will. nm
x
Obama won't. Bush has earned
NM
Obama does not use Bush's phrases,
because he wants to bring
CHANGE.
Hatred breeds hatred, let's all try it with love.
So what you're saying is that what was okay for Bush is now okay for Obama?
What about that change we can believe in and choosing morals over fear, etc, etc.? It was a bad idea in 2000 and it still stinks in 2010 - doesn't matter who's doing it.
No. I'm saying that Bush left Obama a lot
disastrous years. Obama simply needs a list of what is most important and a truckload of Hefty bags.
Bush sr having lunch with Obama Bin Laden?
freudian slip? LOL. Before you have a canniption...joke. lol.
Here is the Obama vs McCain/Bush tax calculator sm
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
Obama said he was going to let Bush's tax cuts expire....
there is nothing at this site that suggests this takes into consideration letting Bush's tax cuts expire. Everyone should look at what Bush's tax cuts were and what you are going to lose when Obama lets them expire. Get the whole story.
THe Bush tax cuts that Obama is going to let expire...
DID help hardworking people. Do you even know what they are? Sheesh.
Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did.
Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10
As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.
The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.
A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.
No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did. Very unbecoming, disrepectful side of Pres-elect Obama we're seeing.
Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10
As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.
The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.
A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.
No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
OBAMA has already put in motion AND END TO BUSH'S WAR CRIMES sm
Bush committed war crimes and Obama on day one of his presidency has already put in place measures to stop the crimes. Be proud because these are issues that affect human rights for all of us.
Read up, do your research, see what Amnesty International says... be PROUD now instead of ashamed to be an American! We are on the road to recovery, albeit a long road but at least Obama has us on track.
I'm sorry...........is Bush in office? Thought Obama
**
Give me a break! It is okay if it was Bush, but not okay for Obama!
Guess it will never be okay to make fun of the chosen one.
People thought Bush was so bad, under Obama,
nm
I'm wasn't for Bush but you need to remember...Obama is
nm
I'm wasn't for Bush but you need to remember...Obama is
nm
Bush vs Obama on the current crisis
I think I cannot post the link (?) but go to Youtube and search "timeline shows Bush, McCain warn.... for a news piece aired in Canada (and certainly not in the US on the MSM). Back in 2002 Bush and McCain both warned that Fannie and Freddie needed overhauling ,after the Clinton/dem policy that anyone who wants a mortgage should get one had us on a collision course with financial ruin. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo! Bawney Fwank said: We're all just fine here. No problem. Nothing to look at, people. Move along. Chuck Schumer said: Fannie and Freddie have been doing an outstanding job and there is no problem. So, once again history has vindicated a republican, but we in the US are being protected from such dangerous information. How about a REVERSE fairness doctrine?
Oh slam Obama all day, but don't bring up BUSH
He's the one that put us in the mess. Get it?
Obama has nothing to do with market... BUSH TANKED OUR COUNTRY nm
nm
Distract from Obama's disaster by bashing Bush
nm
Dont worry about Bush. OBAMA is ruining
NM
Bush gave Obama's cronies a bailout?
Was it a housewarming gift?
Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors
Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors
'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged
By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03
CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.
Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.
Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.
Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'
As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.
Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.
Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.
In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.
Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.
He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'
Bush considered taking Obama's approach last summer
efforts to forge peace in Israel/Palestine.
Bush floated the idea of re-establishing a diplomatic US interests section in Tehran last summer which for the time being has been shelved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_no_deal
Here's the no-brainer rule-of-thumb on this topic. If you wwant war, you don't negotiate with opponents. If you want peace, you sit down aat the table.
When evaluating the credibility of this ad, as yourself that basic question..."Who stands to benefit the most" by taking this position? As they have demonstrated over the past 60 years, it is in Zionist's best interest to perpetuate war in their region. They have been able to enrich their nation immensely with US taxpayer dollars and enjoy an uncontested nuclear bully status in the region as the US's most favorite global puppet. The notion that the US would promote peace or stability in the region would diminish their status exponentially and are the last nation on earth that would like to see the US play the disarmament card.
|
